Prontosan > Evidence


 

Clinical Evidence

The following clinical evidence clearly demonstrates Prontosan® as:
 

Cost effective

              Clinically proven to reduce healing / nursing times and dressing changes     
  
 

  Improves patients quality of life.

              Reduction in pain and odour

STUDY SUMMARY Click on below attachment
to read full study
Andriessen A, Eberlein T (2008)
Assessment of a wound cleansing solution in the treatment of problem wounds 		Infection rates were reduced to 3% using Prontosan® versus 13% saline / ringers group.   Prontosan® also healed wounds quicker in a time of 3.31 months compared to 4.42 months
Cutting K, (2010)
Addressing the challenge of wound cleansing in the modern era

This article asks the question is it now time to reconsider the approach to wound cleansing, and to contemplate an alternative to water as the cleansing agent of choice.

It highlights why and when wounds require cleansing and the role of biofilms and how they delay healing. It also discusses Prontosan and the evidence behind Prontosan, as the new alternative to saline and water.
Davis S, (2007)
Determination of the effects of Prontosan® Irrigation Solution on MRSA and biofilms in a partial thickness porcine wound model 		Irrigation of wounds with Prontosan® resulted in a significant reduction of MRSA at 48 hrs & 72 hrs compared to all treatment groups
Horrocks A, (2006)
Prontosan Wound Irrigation and Gel: Management of chronic wounds   		10 patient evaluation which demonstrates Prontosan® as offering safe and cost effective method of cleansing wounds, which is more efficient than saline.
James A, (2007)
Biofilms in chronic wounds 		Light and scanning electron microscopy techniques were used to analyze 50 chronic wounds and 30 were characterized as containing biofilms (60%).   Molecular analysis was performed on the remaining 27 chronic wounds, this revealed diverse polymicrobial communities and the presence of bacteria.
Kaehn K,Eberlein T, (2009)
In-vitro test for comparing the efficacy of wound rinsing solutions 		The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of Saline, Ringers, Prontosan® and Ocenisept to solubilize and remove wound coatings using a wound coating model. Prontosan® was the only solution where the test coatings disintegrated and the denatured proteins solubilized. The test coatings became fixed and insoluble when immersed in Octenisept.
Kramer A, Roth B, Muller G, Rudolph P, Klocker (2004)
Influence of antiseptic agents Polyhexanide( PHMB) and Octenidine on FL cells and on healing of experimental superficial aseptic wounds in piglets 		The article compares PHMB, octenidine and placebo. They found in the early stages of wound healing octenidine retarded wound contraction where as in the later stage PHMB significantly promoted wound closure. Complete wound closure achieved with PHMB, 22.9 days, placebo 24.1 days and octenidine 28.3days.
Moller A, Nolte A, Kaehn K, (2004)
Experiences with the use of PHMB-containing wound products in the management of chronic wounds 		Results of a methodical and retrospective analysis of 953 patients. Wound infection rate fell from 40% to 3%, and 80% of the wounds healed to wound closure.
Mrowietz U, (2005)
Analysis of observational study on the tolerability and combinability of Prontosan® Gel 		Observational study found that there are no limitations of using Prontosan® Gel with other wound dressings. Through regular use of Prontosan® Gel there was a reduction in wound odour and the tolerability was very good.
Phillips PL, Wolcott RD, Fletcher J, Schultz GS, (2010)
Biofilms made easy

This article describes what biofilms are and the important roles they play in disrupting wound healing. In addition, it discusses potential interventions (Prontosan) aimed at removing / reducing biofilms and preventing their reformation in wounds
Romanelli M, (2008)
Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of a solution containing Betaine and PHMB in controlling the bacterial burden of chronic wounds during wound bed preparation 		40 patients with colonized, critically colonized and infected venous leg ulcers. 20 patients were treated with Prontosan® and 20 patients treated with saline at each dressing change. The Prontosan® group showed a significantly better control of bacterial burden. 
Seipp H M, (2005 – 2007)
Efficacy of Prontosan® against strains of staphylococcus aureus and MRSA in the quantitative suspension test 		In vitro test verifies that Prontosan® is effective without limitation against both Staphylococcus Aureus and the MRSA strain
Seipp H M, Hofmann A, Hack A, Skowronsky A, Hauri A, (2005 – 2007)
Efficacy of various wound irrigants against biofilm 		This study tested Prontosan®, Saline and Ringers in there efficacy against biofilm of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa.   Baseline biofilms were unaffected by Ringers and Saline but Prontosan® reduces biofilm with no adverse affects enabling healing to take place.
Scientific Evidence Brochure

Overview of Scientific Evidence including mode of action, tolerability and clinical evidence.