{
  "abstract": "The effectiveness of four mechanical debridement devices for removing ex vivo porcine wound biofilms was assessed. Devices comprised a one-sided straight monofilament fibre pad, a one-sided looped monofilament fibre pad, a two-sided foam pad with distinct loosening and absorptive surfaces (TSFP), and traditional cotton gauze. Dual-species Staphylococcus aureus / Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms were cultivated in an ex vivo porcine wound model. Debridement was standardised using a mechanical simulator and performed at a single time point (24 h, 72 h, or 7 d post-inoculation) to represent differing biofilm maturities, or repeatedly over seven days (once, twice, or three times) to simulate outpatient dressing-change schedules. Biofilm removal was quantified using colony counting and viability mapping. In the model-derived percentage-removal analysis following single debridements, OSLMP and TSFP demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze at 24 h. TSFP consistently achieved > 90% model-derived reduction in viable CFU/wound across all single-debridement time points and demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze at 24, 72 and 168 h. PrestoBlue staining revealed corresponding reductions in PrestoBlue-positive wound-surface coverage. Following repeated debridements, TSFP maintained > 90% model-derived reduction in viable CFU/wound and demonstrated significantly greater removal than gauze following each debridement schedule. Hedges’ g effect sizes frequently exceeded 2.0 for TSFP relative to gauze and the single-sided devices, indicating pronounced effects under the predefined interpretation thresholds.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [],
  "article_type": null,
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 4,
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "Christopher Doherty"
    },
    {
      "name": "Sajwa Baqader"
    },
    {
      "name": "Steven Mercer"
    },
    {
      "name": "Andrew J. McBain"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7116zccygpdem.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.1038/s41598-026-75044-8",
  "fulltext_url": null,
  "id": "7116zccygpdem",
  "issns": [
    "2045-2322"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-75044-8",
  "language": null,
  "licence": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "openalex",
      "2742|Wound Healing and Treatments"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7221422078",
  "pdf_url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-75044-8_reference.pdf",
  "pmcid": null,
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-23",
  "publisher": "Springer Science and Business Media LLC",
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7116zccygpdem.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:17:33Z",
      "native_id": "10.1038/s41598-026-75044-8",
      "source": "crossref",
      "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-75044-8"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "openalex:2742|Wound Healing and Treatments",
      "subfield": "general"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Evaluation of the comparative biofilm removal properties of four cleansing and debridement tools, in an ex vivo porcine wound model",
  "title_text": "Evaluation of the comparative biofilm removal properties of four cleansing and debridement tools, in an ex vivo porcine wound model",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-10-30T12:17:33Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/7116zccygpdem",
  "venue": "Scientific Reports",
  "versions": []
}