The estimation of the treatment effectiveness of the experimental soft tissues septic wound with the application of polymer antimicrobial compound in the depo-form of decametoxinum
Today septic wound treatment demands from a surgeon a multipurpose approach. For the reason of the microorganisms’ resistance to antibiotics, specialists have to use more often various dosage forms of antiseptics. According to the topical cement antibiotic form, which is used in traumatology and orthopedics, the new antimicrobial polymer compound was designed, that contains decametoxinum. Previous studies in vitro proved the sustained-release of the agent. The purpose of our experiment is to study the treatment effectiveness of the new polymer compound dosage form of the decametoxinum in comparison with other treatment methods of septic-necrotic processes of soft tissues. We estimated on laboratory animals the effectiveness of alternative treatment approaches of the septic wound management, which were caused by S.аureus and P.аeruginosa, in different groups, including those where the new antiseptics’ dosage form was used. Three groups of the septic experimental wounds were treated by the principles of monotherapy — with liquid solution of decametoxinum, depo-form of decametoxinum and with intramuscular (IM) injection of etiological antibiotic — amikacin. The animals in fourth group received multipurpose treatment — depo-form of the decametoxinum topically with amikacin IM. Fifth group — was the control one. Visual estimation, bacteriological investigations were held according to the stages of the wound healing process. Macroscopic assessment of the wounds showed the best treatment effect in groups with depo-form application, especially during the first stage of the healing process. Finally, it was revealed that in groups where different dosage forms of decametoxinum were used the effectiveness of decontamination process was almost the same. But the wounds’ redressing with depo-form of decametoxinum was carried out once in three – four days, in comparison with daily redressings of the wounds in the group where it’s liquid form was used. The sanitation effect was more vital against P.aeruginosa, then in relation to S.aureus. The best results were received in the multipurpose treatment group — the complete bactericidal effect against all microbe populations was achieved. That grants us an idea about possible potentiation of the system antibiotic by topical antiseptic.
2. Zubareva, N. A., Renzhin, A. V., & Shmagel, K. V. (2010). Mestnyy immunitet gnoynykh ran [Local immunity of purulent wounds]. Meditsinskaya immunologiya – Medical immunology, 12 (4–5), 393–398.
5. Kovalʹchuk, V. P., & Kondratyuk, V. M. (2009). Novi antyseptychni zasoby vitchyznyanoho vyrobnytstva. Porivnyalʹna kharakterystyka protymikrobnoyi aktyvnosti [New antiseptic means of domestic production. Comparative characteristics of antimicrobial activity]. Mystetstvo likuvannya – Art of treatment, 2 (009), 82.
6. Kondratyuk, V. M., Bohush, H. L., Fomin, O. O., Tomchuk, S. V., & Bektemirova, R. M. (2016). Mikroflora boyovykh ran kintsivok, yaki oderzhani v khodi antyterorystychnoyi operatsiyi, u poranenykh, shcho prokhodyly likuvannya u VMKTS TSR m. Vinnytsya [Microflora of the war wounds of the limbs obtained during the antiterrorist operation in the wounded, who were treated at the IUCC of the Central Research Center of the city of Vinnytsia]. Kharkivsʹka khirurhichna shkola – Kharkiv Surgical School, 2, 80–83.
7. Kondratyuk, V. M., Kovalchuk, V. P., Bektemirova, R. M., & Fomin O. O. (2017). Vyvchennya kinetyky i vydilennya protymikrobnoyi rechovyny z polimernykh kompozytsiy mikrobiolohichnym metodom v poyednanni z matematychnym analizom [Study of kinetics and isolation of antimicrobial substance from polymeric compositions by microbiological method in conjunction with mathematical analysis]. Ukrayinskyy zhurnal medytsyny, biolohiyi ta sportu – Ukrainian Journal of Medicine, Biology and Sports, 5(7), 132–136.
8. Paliy, H. K., Kovalchuk, V. P., Derkach, N. M., Paliy, D. V., & Kryzhanovska, A. V. (2010). Efektyvnist antysepytchnoho preparatu Dekasanu [The effectiveness of antiseptic drug Dezasanum]. Biomed. and Biosoc. Anthropol, 15, 8.
9. Paliy, H. K., Nazarchuk, O. A., Bobyr, V. V., Honchar O. O., Hrydina, T. L., Paliy, D. V., & Burkot, V. M. (2015). Otsinka antybakterialnykh protyhrybkovykh vlastyvostey suchasnykh antyseptykiv [Evaluation of antibacterial antifungal properties of modern antiseptics]. Mikrobiolohiya i biotekhnolohiya – Microbiology and Biotechnology, 4 (32), 67–74.
10. Privolnev, V. V., Rodin, A. V., & Karakulina, Y. V. (2012). Mestnoye primeneniye antibiotikov v lechenii infektsiy kostnoy tkani [Local use of antibiotics in the treatment of infections of bone tissue]. Klinicheskaya mikrobiologiya i antimikrobnaya khimioterapiya – Clinical microbiology and antimicrobial chemotherapy, 14 (2), 118–132.
11. Rymsha, O. V. (2012). Chutlyvist do antyseptykiv mikroflory, vydilenoyi u khvorykh urolohichnoho profilyu [Sensitivity to antiseptics of microflora isolated from patients with urological profile]. Liky Ukrayiny plyus – Medicines of Ukraine plus, 1-2, 58–59.
12. Yakobchuk, S. O. (2014). Suchasni pytannya vykorystannya antybiotykiv pry infektsiyi shkiry ta myakykh tkanyn u khirurhiyi [Modern issues of using antibiotics for skin and soft tissue infections in surgery]. Klinichna anatomiya ta operatyvna khirurhiya – Clinical Anatomy and Operative Surgery, 13 (2), 99–104.
3. Murray, C. K. (2017). Field Wound Care: Prophylactic Antibiotics. Wilderness & environmental medicine, 28 (2), S90–S102. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2016.12.009.
4. Omens, C. D., & Stoessel, K. (2008). Surgical site infection: epidemiology, microbiology and prevention. Jornal of Hospital Infection, 70, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/S0195-6701(08)60017-1.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.