Main Article Content
Wound Infection, Local Antimicrobial Agents, Wound Dressings, Poly(2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate), Controlled Release.
Background and aim. Оne of the promising areas is the development of synthetic wound dressings with programmed release of active substances that can affect various elements in the pathogenesis of the wound process. The aim was to study the antimicrobial properties of a new polymeric material based on poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate).
Methods: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, dimethacrylate triethylene glycol as crosslinking agent, polymerization initiator of azobisizobutyronitrile along with a porogen and one of the antimicrobial agents, including decamethoxin, chlorhexidine bigluconate, silver nitrate, octenidine, furacilin, metronidazole, dioxidine, and gentamicin were used to synthesize a new material with antimicrobial activity. For comparison, polymer samples synthesized without adding antimicrobials were used, as well as known dressing materials: carbon material, porcine skin, which were immersed into 0.02% decamethoxin solution before use, as well as silver-containing dressing, hydrogel dressings, including those filled with silver. Determination of antibacterial properties was performed by diffusionmethod.
Results. Low antimicrobial activity of the studied existing wound dressings, which are widely used in medical practice, even under conditions of their saturation with antiseptic substances, has been established. Samples of the suggested polymeric material with the addition of antimicrobial substances showed the ability to inhibit the growth of the test strains of microorganisms at a sufficient level, especially with such fillers as decamethoxin, gentamicin, dioxidine. When metronidazole was added to the polymeric material, a reliable antimicrobial effect on the anaerobic microorganisms was established.
Conclusions.Modification of the polymeric material of poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) by adding antimicrobial substances allows to ensure its high antimicrobial properties against different microorganisms.
2. Greaves NS, Ashcroft KJ, Baguneid M, Bayat A. Current understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms in fibroplasia and angiogenesis during acute wound healing. J Dermatol Sci 2013; 72(3): 206-17.
3. Sorg H, Tilkorn DJ, Hager S, Hauser J, Mirastschijski U. Skin Wound Healing: An Update on the Current Knowledge and Concepts. Eur Surg Res 2017; 58(1-2): 81-94.
4. Okur ME, Karantas ID, Şenyiğit Z, Üstündağ Okur N, Siafaka PI. Recent trends on wound management: New therapeutic choices based on polymeric carriers. Asian J Pharm Sci 2020; 15(6): 661-84.
5. Lindholm C, Searle R. Wound management for the 21st century: combining effectiveness and efficiency. Int Wound J 2016; 13 Suppl 2: 5-15.
6. Paduraru A, Ghitulica C, Trusca R et al. Antimicrobial Wound Dressings as Potential Materials for Skin Tissue Regeneration. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12(11): 1859.
7. Landriscina A, Rosen J, Friedman AJ. Systematic Approach to Wound Dressings. J Drugs Dermatol 2015; 14(7): 740-4.
8. Obagi Z, Damiani G, Grada A, Falanga V. Principles of Wound Dressings: A Review. Surg Technol Int 2019; 35: 50-7.
9. Kovalenko OM, Kovalenko AO, Osadcha OI. [Impact of the wound coverings on the wound ph in superficial burns of the skin]. Klin Khir 2017; (2): 28-30. Ukrainian.
10. Saini RK, Bajpai J, Bajpai AK. Synthesis of Poly(2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate) (PHEMA)-Based Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Applications. Methods Mol Biol 2020; 2118: 165-74.
11. Boni R, Ali A, Shavandi A, Clarkson AN. Current and novel polymeric biomaterials for neural tissue engineering. J Biomed Sci 2018; 25(1): 90.
12. Sinha M, Gupte T. Design and evaluation of artificial cornea with core-skirt design using polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate and graphite. Int Ophthalmol 2018; 38(3): 1225-33.
13. Di Z, Shi Z, Ullah MW, Li S, Yang G. A transparent wound dressing based on bacterial cellulose whisker and poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate). Int J Biol Macromol 2017; 105: 638-44.
14. Кukolevska О, Gerashchenko I, Pakhlov E. [Nanocomposite materials with controlled release of bioactive substances]. NaUKMA Research Papers 2016; 183: 60-4. Ukrainian.
15. Kukolevska OS, Gerashchenko II, Borysenko MV, Pakhlov EM, Machovsky M, Yushchenko TI. Synthesis and Examination of Nanocomposites Based on Poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) for Medicinal Use. Nanoscale Res Lett 2017; 12(1): 133.
16. Jorgensen JH, Ferraro MJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: a review of general principles and contemporary practices. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49(11): 1749-55.
17. Brook I, Wexler HM, Goldstein EJ. Antianaerobic antimicrobials: spectrum and susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013; 26(3): 526-46.
18. Patel JB. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twenty-forth informational supplement. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2014.
19. Kühn KD, Renz N, Trampuz A. Lokale Antibiotikatherapie [Local antibiotic therapy]. Unfallchirurg 2017; 120(7): 561-572. German.
20. Wittmann D, Summer B, Thomas B, Halder A, Thomas P. Gentamicin allergy as an unexpected 'hidden' cause of complications in knee arthroplasty. Contact Dermatitis 2018; 78(4): 293-294.
21. Nazarchuk OA, Nahaichuk VI, Osadchuk NI, Dmytriiev DV, Dmytriiev KD, Turzhanska OS. Prognostic parameters of the susceptibility of Staphylococcus spp. to aminoglycosides and doxycycline. Wiad Lek 2020; 73(8): 1615-19.
22. Swieringa AJ, Tulp NJ. Toxic serum gentamicin levels after the use of gentamicin-loaded sponges in infected total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2005; 76(1): 75-7.
23. Nazarchuk AA., Vernygorodskyi SV., Palii VG., Nazarchuk GG. Experimental reseach of effectiveness of antimicrobial surgical matherials containing decamethoxinum. Nov. Khirurgii. 2018, 26(1): 16-23.