Jump to content
Sorbact advantages

Effective wound healing

Safe and effective removal of bacteria reduces the bioburden in wounds which facilitates the healing process. It is also shown that Sorbact exhibits high cell compatibility and does not change cell morphology. Moreover there is a minimized cell attachment to the dressing surface which thereby increases safety towards tissues.

Binds common microbes in the wound – as well as multi-resistant bacteria

Common wound microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans, bind to the unique surface of Sorbact.* Sorbact also binds MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)[6]View reference information, VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus) and targets fungi.

*In vitro data

No known bacterial resistance

With the Sorbact mode of action, unlike certain antimicrobial substances that kill microbes, development of bacterial or fungal resistance is not expected, and it can be used for a prolonged period of time.

Facilitates wound healing

Elevated microbe levels will result in risk of infection and delayed wound healing. Sorbact safely reduces the bioburden thus improving the conditions for efficient wound healing.

Sorbact can be used to prevent and treat wound infections and in conjunction with systemic antibiotic therapy if needed.

Illustration showing how wounds can progress in six stages: clean, contamination, colonization, local infection, spreading infection, and systemic infection. Microbial virulence and/or numbers increase along the way, potentially delaying wound healing. The image shows that Sorbact prevents and treats wound infections by reducing the wound bioburden.

Read more

References

  1. Gentili V, Gianesini S, et al. 2012. Panbacterial real-time PCR to evaluate bacterial burden in chronic wounds treated with Cutimed Sorbact. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 31(7):1523-1529

    External link to reference1 (Opens in new tab) Back

  2. Mosti G, Magliaro A, et al. 2015. Comparative study of two antimicrobial dressings in infected leg ulcers: a pilot study. J Wound Care. 24(3):121-122, 124-127.

    External link to reference2 (Opens in new tab) Back

  3. Data on file, a. ABIGO Medical

    Back

  4. Data on file, b. ABIGO Medical

    Back

  5. Budi Susilo Y and Husmark J. DACC coated wound dressing and endotoxin: Investigation on binding ability and effect on endotoxin release from gram-negative bacteria. EWMA 2019. 2019;EP167.

    Back

  6. Ronner AC, Curtin J, et al. 2014. Adhesion of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to DACC-coated dressings. J Wound Care. 23(10):484, 486-488.

    External link to reference6 (Opens in new tab) Back