Home > Journals > Acta Vulnologica > Past Issues > Acta Vulnologica 2012 September;10(3) > Acta Vulnologica 2012 September;10(3):143-52






Acta Vulnologica 2012 September;10(3):143-52


language: English, Italian

Chloroxidating solution vs. superoxide solution: a comparison in wound cleansing

Cassino R., Ippolito AM.

Vulnera, Italian Vulnological Center, Turin, Italy


AIM: Is cleansing really just a mechanical act, or can the coparticipation of a chemical substance improve the healing trend? All of our work is structured on the basis of this question, whose aim is therefore that of showing that cleansing, by actively participating in the wound bed preparation process, is not only a mechanical action, but makes use of chemical substances to improve and/or enhance what is the wound cleansing act.
METHODS: Ten patients with chronic skin lesions of known etiology, non-ischemic, non-necrotic, and non-infected and with a WBP Score from A to C were treated with a predressing chloroxidating solution compress; the controls at 14 and 28 days included a culture swab before the compress with the antiseptic. The observation period was 4 weeks. The outcomes foreseen were the reduction of bacterial activity, the improvement of the WBP Score and the reduction of pain with the NRS analysis. We then compared the results with those of a previous observational study conducted in the same manner, but with the use of a superoxidizing solution.
RESULTS: The effectiveness of the chloroxidating solution 0.05% was appreciable in clinical and laboratory terms. The reduction of the bacterial load, the improvement of the WBP Score, the decrease in pain, and the low cost demonstrated the clear superiority of the treatment with respect to that with superoxide.
CONCLUSION:The good cleansing of the lesion (wound cleansing) coincides with the completion of the debridement action; disinfectant chloroxidating solutions 0.05% are preferable for the patient’s welfare and cost.

top of page