Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
In Vitro Assay of Bacterial Adhesion onto Mammalian Epithelial Cells
Published on: May 16, 2011
[In vitro comparison of antibacterial efficacy of nonadherent antimicrobial dressings]
Johana Kučerová1, Vojtěch Mezera, Ivo Bureš
1Department of Clinical Microbiology, Pardubice Hospital, Czech Repubic,
Objectives:
The use of nonadherent dressings is part of care for chronic wounds. In this paper, we present the results of in vitro activity of several such dressings on bacteria most commonly found in chronic wounds.
Material And Methods:
Selected bacterial strains were isolated from chronic wounds of patients in Pardubice Hospital in the period from February to May 2022. The following dressings were tested: Inadine and Aqvidine, both containing povidone iodine, Bactigras containing chlorhexidine acetate and Xeroform containing bismuth tribromophenate. The zone of inhibition size and the ability to inhibit growth after dressing removal were evaluated.
Results:
Inadine and Aqvidine had significantly larger zones of inhibition than Bactigras or Xeroform. We found no significant differences between Inadine and Aqvidine (except for Klebsiella pneumoniae) or between Bactigras and Xeroform (except for Streptococcus pyogenes). Inadine and Aqvidine were able to inhibit bacterial growth after dressing removal (except for Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Bactigras and Xeroform did not exhibit this ability, which was only observed for Streptococcus pyogenes after removal of Bactigras.
Conclusions:
The dressings Inadine and Aqvidine containing povidone iodine were more effective than Bactigras and Xeroform against all species tested and their antibacterial activity against most strains persisted even after removal. These differences in antibacterial -efficacy should be considered when selecting wound dressings.
