Colonized, critically colonized and infected wounds: differentiation using clinical and microbiological and morphological methods of investigation

Objective. To analyze the clinical and microbiological and morphological features of wounds of different duration, allowing to differentiate the stages of the infectious process and to determine recommendations for further tactics of preoperative preparation.
Materials and methods. Clinical and microbiological and morphological assessment of the state of acute and chronic wounds in 313 patients was performed.
Results. Colonized wounds were characterized by the presence of pathological signs (atrophy, cicatricial changes) in fine-grained granulations, the frequency of which increased from 38.5% for wounds lasting 22–28 days up to 85.1% for wounds lasting more than 2 months (χ2 = 14.0 ; p=0.003). Infected wounds were more often detected at terms of 22–28 days (24.6%, vs 3.9% for wounds more than 2 months old, χ2=40.51; p<0.001). Critically colonized wounds made up with coarse-grained granulations were detected at all stages of wound existence (from 21.6 to 32.8%). The analysis of biopsy specimens revealed the initial signs of proliferation disorders in 22-28 day wounds, which justifies the need to classify them as chronic. Second phase reparation failure was detected in all cases of chronic wounds; the severity of the signs of purulent inflammation increased depending on the stage of the infectious process.
Conclusion. Differentiation of the stages of the infectious process in wounds using the clinical and microbiological and morphological research methods is necessary for the determination of the indications for the use of local wound debridement and systemic antibiotic therapy at the stage of wound preparation for plastic closure.

1. Raziyeva K, Kim Y, Zharkinbekov Z, Kassymbek K, Jimi S, Saparov A. Immunology of Acute and Chronic Wound Healing. Biomolecules. 2021;11:700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11050700

2. Trøstrup H, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Møller K, Høiby N, Moser C. What is new in the understanding of non healing wounds epidemiology, pathophysiology, and therapies. Ulcers. 2013:625934. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/625934

3. Vinnik YuS, Salmina AB, Drobushevskaya AI, Teplyakova OV, Pogilenkova EA, Zicova LD. The cell technologies and the tissue engineering are for healing chronic wounds. Journal of experimental and clinical sugery. 2011;4(2):392-397. [date of access 2022 April 18]. Available from: https://vestnik-surgery.com/index.php/journal/issue/view/11 (In Russ.).

4. Vinnik YuS, Salmina AB, Drobushevskaya AI, Teplyakova OV, Pogilenkova EA, Kotikov AR. Features of the pathogenesis of long-term non-healing wounds. Novosti Khirurgii. 2011;19(3):101-110. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: http://www.surgery.by/pdf/full_text/2011_3_16_ft.pdf (In Russ.).

5. Gajula B, Munnamgi S, Basu S. How bacterial biofilms affect chronic wound healing: a narrative review. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health. 2020;3:e16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GH9.0000000000000016

6. Wu YK, Cheng NC, Cheng CM. Biofilms in Chronic Wounds: Pathogenesis and Diagnosis. Trends in biotechnology. 2019;37(5):505-517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.011

7. Privolnev VV, Zubareva NА, Karakulina ЕV. Topical therapy of wound infections: antiseptics or antibiotics? CMAC. 2017;19(2):131–138. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: https://cmac-journal.ru/publication/2017/2/cmac-2017-t19-n2-p131/cmac-2017-t19-n2-p131.pdf (In Russ.).

8. Schultz G., Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Harding K, et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2003;11(1):1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.11.s2.1.x

9. Keast DH, Bowering K, Evans AW, MacKean G, Burrows C, D’Souza L. MEASURE: A proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2004;12(3 Suppl.):1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.0123S1.x

10. Young L. Identifying infection in chronic wounds. Wound Practice and Research. 2012;20(1):38-44. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: https://www.awma.com.au/files/journal/2001_04.pdf

11. Dissemond J, Assadian O, Gerber V, Kingsley A, Kramer A, Leaper DJ, et al. Classification of Wounds at Risk and Their Antimicrobial Treatment with Polihexanide: A Practice-Oriented Expert Recommendation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2011;24(5):245-255. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1159/000327210

12. Woo KY, Sibbald GR. A cross-sectional validation study of using NERDS and STONEES to assess bacterial burden. Octomy wound management. 2009;55(8):40-48. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/wmp/content/a-cross-sectional-validation-study-usingnerds-and-stonees-assess-bacterial-burden

13. Maksimova NV, Lyundup AV, Lyubimov RO, Melnichenko GA, Nikolenko VN. Pathophysiological aspects of wound healing in normal and diabetic foot. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2014;69(11-12):110-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15690/vramn.v69i11-12.1192 (In Russ.).

14. Dissemond J, Augustin M, Eming SA, Goerge T, Horn T, Karrer S, et al. Modern wound care – practical aspects of noninterventional topical treatment of patients with chronic wounds. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014;12(7):541-554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.12351

15. Saltmarche AE. Low level laser therapy for healing acute and chronic wounds – the extendicare experience. International Wound Journal. 2008;5(2):351-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00491.x

16. International Wound Infection Institute (IWII) Wound infection in clinical practice. Wounds International. 2016. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: https://www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/iwii-wound-infectionclinical-practice

17. Wound infection in clinical practice. An international consensus. Int. Wound J. 2008;5(3):1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00488.x

18. Yarets YuI, Slavnikov IA, Shibaeva NN, Rozhko AV, Dundarov ZA. Method of morphological assessment of the state of the wound process (instruction for use). Approved by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus 16.03.2018 № 018- 0218. [date of access 2022 April 01]. Available from: http://med.by/methods/book.php?book=2466 (In Russ.).

19. Yarets YuI, Shevchenko NI, Eremin VF. Methodology of microbiological analysis of wound swabs within the framework of modern concepts of wound infection process. Laboratory Service. 2021;10(3):33-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/labs20211003133 (In Russ.).

20. Marano RJ, Wallace3 HJ, Wijeratne D, Fear MW, Wong HS, O’Handley Ryan Secreted biofilm factors adversely affect cellular wound healing responses in vitro. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:13296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13296