4.5 Review

Volatile Organic Compounds in the Early Diagnosis of Non-healing Surgical Wounds: A Systematic Review

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 1669-1677

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06548-3

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review evaluates the potential use of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released by surgical wounds as a non-invasive method for identifying bacterial species and predicting the progression to chronic non-healing wounds. The analysis of seven studies shows that VOC profiles are associated with causative bacterial species, indicating anatomical specificity and the ability to monitor treatment effects.
Background The normal healing of surgical wounds can be disrupted by infection and/or dehiscence, leading to development of chronic, non-healing wounds (NHW). Diagnosis of NHWs is via clinical acumen and analysis of microbiology wound swabs. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted generally by human subjects and specifically as products of bacterial metabolism and are detected in the wound area. This systematic review will assess the potential use of VOCs released by surgical wounds as a non-invasive method for identifying bacterial species and the progression to NHW. Method A systematic search of studies, via PRISMA guidelines, was conducted. Of 220 papers screened, seven studies were included. Outcome data were extracted on methods for VOC analysis and wound/bacterial VOC profiles. Results The studies have shown that VOC profiles are identified by two methods: gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and electronic nose. There are VOC profiles associated with causative bacterial species, with early indications that they could be anatomically specific or could monitor treatment effects. Conclusion VOC profiling of bacterial species within wounds is possible and could become a point of care test. More research is needed on specific VOC profiles to wound location and whether these profiles may predict progression to NHW.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据