3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Maggot debridement therapy: a systematic review

      1 , 2
      British Journal of Community Nursing
      Mark Allen Group

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK.

          To estimate the annual cost of treating pressure ulcers in the UK. Costs were derived from a bottom-up methodology, based on the daily resources required to deliver protocols of care reflecting good clinical practice. Health and social care system in the UK. Patients developing a pressure ulcer. A bottom-up costing approach is used to estimate treatment cost per episode of care and per patient for ulcers of different grades and level of complications. Also, total treatment cost to the health and social care system in the UK. The cost of treating a pressure ulcer varies from pound 1,064 (Grade 1) to pound 10,551 (Grade 4). Costs increase with ulcer grade because the time to heal is longer and because the incidence of complications is higher in more severe cases. The total cost in the UK is pound 1.4- pound 2.1 billion annually (4% of total NHS expenditure). Most of this cost is nurse time. Pressure ulcers represent a very significant cost burden in the UK. Without concerted effort this cost is likely to increase in the future as the population ages. To the extent that pressure ulcers are avoidable, pressure damage may be indicative of clinical negligence and there is evidence that litigation could soon become a significant threat to healthcare providers in the UK, as it is in the USA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Maggot therapy for treating diabetic foot ulcers unresponsive to conventional therapy.

            To assess the efficacy of maggot therapy for treating foot and leg ulcers in diabetic patients failing conventional therapy. Retrospective comparison of changes in necrotic and total surface area of chronic wounds treated with either maggot therapy or standard (control) surgical or nonsurgical therapy. In this cohort of 18 patients with 20 nonhealing ulcers, six wounds were treated with conventional therapy, six with maggot therapy, and eight with conventional therapy first, then maggot therapy. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated no significant change in necrotic tissue, except when factoring for treatment (F [1.7, 34] = 5.27, P = 0.013). During the first 14 days of conventional therapy, there was no significant debridement of necrotic tissue; during the same period with maggot therapy, necrotic tissue decreased by an average of 4.1 cm(2) (P = 0.02). After 5 weeks of therapy, conventionally treated wounds were still covered with necrotic tissue over 33% of their surface, whereas after only 4 weeks of therapy maggot-treated wounds were completely debrided (P = 0.001). Maggot therapy was also associated with hastened growth of granulation tissue and greater wound healing rates. Maggot therapy was more effective and efficient in debriding nonhealing foot and leg ulcers in male diabetic veterans than was continued conventional care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Maggot excretions/secretions are differentially effective against biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

              Lucilia sericata maggots are successfully used for treating chronic wounds. As the healing process in these wounds is complicated by bacteria, particularly when residing in biofilms that protect them from antibiotics and the immune system, we assessed the effects of maggot excretions/secretions (ES) on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms, the clinically most relevant species. We assessed the effects of ES on biofilms using microtitre plate assays, on bacterial viability using in vitro killing and radial diffusion assays, and on quorum sensing systems using specific reporter bacteria. As little as 0.2 microg of ES prevented S. aureus biofilm formation and 2 microg of ES rapidly degraded biofilms. In contrast, ES initially promoted P. aeruginosa biofilm formation, but after 10 h the biofilms collapsed. Degradation of P. aeruginosa biofilms started after 10 h and required 10-fold more ES than S. aureus biofilms. Boiling of ES abrogated their effects on S. aureus, but not on P. aeruginosa, biofilms, indicating that different molecules within ES are responsible for the observed effects. Modulation of biofilms by ES did not involve bacterial killing or effects on quorum sensing systems. Maggot ES are differentially effective against biofilms of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of Community Nursing
                British Journal of Community Nursing
                Mark Allen Group
                1462-4753
                2052-2215
                December 2014
                December 2014
                : 19
                : Sup12
                : S6-S13
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Podiatric Medical Student, Western University of Health Sciences College of Podiatric Medicine, Pomona, CA, USA
                [2 ]Assistant Professor of Podiatric Medicine, Surgery and Biomechanics, Western University of Health Sciences College of Podiatric Medicine, Pomona, CA, USA
                Article
                10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S6
                67e6be58-afcb-4894-8855-abd1c108ff3d
                © 2014
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article