Table 1: Key scientific evidence for the presence of biofilm in human wounds
From: Biofilm delays wound healing: A review of the evidence
Wound type | No. | Methods | Observations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Chronic wounds | 50 | Light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) | 30 (60%) chronic wounds observed to contain biofilm | James et al. (2008)[10] |
Acute wounds | 16 | Light microscopy, SEM | 1 (6%) acute wound contained biofilm | James et al. (2008)[10] |
Chronic wounds | 22 | Confocal microscopy | 13 (59%) chronic wounds contained biofilm | Kirketerp-Møller et al. (2008)[11 |
Chronic wounds | 2 | Fluorescence microscopy | Both samples contained biofilm | Bjarnsholt et al. (2008)[14] |
Chronic wounds | 10 | Fluorescence microscopy, confocal microscopy | Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm seen deeper in wound bed than Staphylococcus aureus | Fazli et al. (2009)[15] |
Chronic wounds | 10 | Fluorescence microscopy, confocal microscopy | P. aeruginosa biofilm elicited greater inflammation than S. aureus | Fazli et al. (2011)[16] |
Mixed etiologies | 15 | Fluorescence microscopy | 7 (47%) wounds contained biofilm | Han et al. (2011)[17] |
Diabetic foot ulcers | 2 | Confocal microscopy | Both samples contained biofilm | Neut et al. (2011)[18] |
Full-thickness burns | 11 | Light microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, SEM | Ulcerated areas and escharotomy sites contained biofilm; non-ulcerated areas did not | Kennedy et al. (2010)[19] |