Efficacy of Laser Debridement on Pain and Bacterial Load in Chronic Wounds

March 16, 2020 updated by: Geoffrey C. Gurtner, Stanford University

Efficacy of the Er:YAG Laser Debridement on Patient-Reported Pain and Bacterial Load in Chronic Wounds

Bacterial load is frequently associated with impaired healing of chronic wounds. As well, sharp debridement is often associated with pain, causing patient distress, and thereby occasionally contributing to inadequacy of debridement, leading to a delay in wound healing. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of the Sciton Laser in reducing bacterial load and patient distress in patients with chronic wounds, in efforts to expedite the wound healing process.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Chronic wounds are a debilitating affliction, affecting a substantial portion of the population worldwide and incurring staggering healthcare economic costs (1,2). Included among chronic wounds are venous leg ulcers, which are known to cause considerable pain, and can impact patient quality of life, thereby complicating wound care (3). The exact pathophysiology and etiology of the prolonged course of chronic wounds are poorly understood, but are thought to be multi-factorial in nature. Given the exposure of chronic wounds to the environment, they harbor a diverse microbial flora. Specifically, there is evidence that biofilm produced by these microbes are a large contributor to their non-healing nature (4). Debridement is considered an integral part of wound management with its ability to remove necrotic tissue and bacterial biofilm, in addition to stimulating release of cytokines and growth factors that promote wound healing (5). However, sharp debridement, the gold standard in wound care, is often ineffective for painful wounds.

The effect of lasers on wound healing have been well-studied both in in vitro and in vivo models. Beneficial effects of low-level laser therapy in wound healing in animal and human studies has been established. However, extrapolation of this data is limited by study design and light dosimetry (6). Laser energy used for surgical excision is a lesser-known debridement technique that has been largely limited to burn scar treatment (7,8,9,10). Lasers are electro-optical devices that emit a focused beam of intense monochromatic light in the visible and infrared radiation spectrums. Since their start in the 1960s, lasers have been successfully utilized in many fields of medicine. Lasers for wound debridement began in the 1970s, with the successful report of a continuous-beam carbon dioxide (CO2) laser used for skin graft preparation of infected decubitus ulcers (11). Laser debridement is based on the controlled vaporization of the superficial layers of the wound bed. This results in the removal of the tissue containing unwanted microbial and necrotic particles. The laser type and the number of passes performed determine the depth of tissue ablation (12). Unlike other methods dependent on the clinician's manual control, laser debridement is electronically controlled, improving precision and reducing the risk of healthy tissue damage. Advantages of laser debridement include precision and uniformity of tissue ablation, which reduces trauma to the wound bed, improving patient comfort. To reduce thermal damage to healthy tissue, several improvements in laser technology have been made over the years. By utilizing a pulsed-beam system, laser energy is delivered in high-power, rapid succession pulses, resulting in short duration and high temperature exposure of target tissue, thereby minimizing thermal injury.

Erbium:YAG (Er:YAG) lasers, with a wavelength of 2940-nm are widely used in the dermatologic community for skin resurfacing, for anti-aging and acne-related purposes (13). Skin ablation with the erbium laser is very precise, and allows for accurate assessment of the resurfacing depth (12,14,15). Since Er:YAG laser energy has greater than twelve times more water absorption efficiency than CO2 lasers, water in the tissue is rapidly expanded to eject the charred debris from the wound surface without leaving behind a necrotic eschar (12,16,17). The Er:YAG laser provides distinct advantages in precise ablation control and the reduction of residual necrotic tissue burden with minimal procedural discomfort, making the Er:YAG laser the most suitable device for laser wound debridement. Preliminary studies demonstrate remarkable patient pain reduction after laser debridement, resulting in more thorough removal of necrotic tissue and biofilm/bacterial load. Additionally, the extent of laser debridement is determined by the laser settings, as opposed to the individual operator's dexterity and skill, thereby providing better control over the wound bed preparation, producing more predictable and reproducible outcomes.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
22

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Aged eighteen years or older
  • Having a chronic wound (as defined by lack of at least 50% reduction in wound surface area over a period of four weeks)
  • No clinical evidence of active wound bed infection
  • No exposure of any vital structure (i.e., tendon, bone, vessel)
  • Has signed the informed consent form prior to any study protocol related procedure
  • Willing and able to adhere to protocol requirements

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any unstable medical condition that would cause the study treatment to be detrimental to the subject, as judged by the Principle Investigator
  • Documented medical history of significant cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, endocrine (other than Diabetes Mellitus type 1 or 2), metabolic, neurological, hepatic or nephrologic disease would impede the subject's participation, as judged by the Principle Investigator
  • Documented medical history of immunosuppression, immune deficiency disorder, or currently using immunosuppressive medications
  • Having clinical presentation of active osteomyelitis
  • Pregnancy or lactation
  • Participation in another clinical study involving ulcers within thirty days prior to enrollment

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: Week 1 - Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser Debridement

During the first treatment, laser debridement will be performed at 200-um until punctate bleeding is visualized. During the second treatment, sharp debridement will be performed via a scalpel/curette until punctate bleeding is visualized.

Tissue biopsies will then be obtained from the wounds prior to the first treatment, immediately after the first treatment, immediately prior to the subsequent treatment, and immediately after the second treatment. These will then be sent to Pathogenius for molecular analysis of wound microflora using polymerase chain reaction and sequencing.

Pain will be assessed during debridement by recording the Numerical Rating Scale for pain assessment.
Device: Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Debridement
Laser debridement entailed usage of an Er:YAG laser, employing the JOULE® machine (Sciton, Inc., Palo Alto, California). Full-field ablation was performed using the 2940 nm Er:YAG Contour TRL Resurfacing® application with the following settings: fluence - 50 J/cm2, spot overlap - 50%, pattern repeat - 0.5 seconds, spot size - 3-mm (Figure 1). Debridement was carried out until all fibrinous and/or necrotic tissues were removed, and healthy, bleeding tissue was visualized.
Procedure: Scalpel/Curette Debridement
Using a scalpel/curette, each patient's chronic wound is debrided until healthy, viable tissue is noted.
Active Comparator: Week 1 - Scalpel/Curette Debridement

During the first treatment, sharp debridement will be performed via a scalpel/curette until punctate bleeding is visualized. During the second treatment, laser debridement will be performed at 200-um until punctate bleeding is visualized.

Tissue biopsies will then be obtained from the wounds prior to the first treatment, immediately after the first treatment, immediately prior to the subsequent treatment, and immediately after the second treatment. These will then be sent to Pathogenius for molecular analysis of wound microflora using polymerase chain reaction and sequencing.

Pain will be assessed during debridement by recording the Numerical Rating Scale for pain assessment.
Device: Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Debridement
Laser debridement entailed usage of an Er:YAG laser, employing the JOULE® machine (Sciton, Inc., Palo Alto, California). Full-field ablation was performed using the 2940 nm Er:YAG Contour TRL Resurfacing® application with the following settings: fluence - 50 J/cm2, spot overlap - 50%, pattern repeat - 0.5 seconds, spot size - 3-mm (Figure 1). Debridement was carried out until all fibrinous and/or necrotic tissues were removed, and healthy, bleeding tissue was visualized.
Procedure: Scalpel/Curette Debridement
Using a scalpel/curette, each patient's chronic wound is debrided until healthy, viable tissue is noted.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain With Debridement
Time Frame: Day 1 of the respective procedure (immediately following)
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is a measurement instrument that tries to measure a characteristic or attitude that is believed to range across a continuum of values and cannot easily be directly measured. It is used in our study to measure the intensity or frequency of pain. We have used Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), variant of VAS, which is a validated, uni-dimensional measure of pain intensity reported on an 11-point numeric scale. The scores were reported from "0" to "10," with "0" representative of "no pain," and "10" representative of the "worst possible pain".
Day 1 of the respective procedure (immediately following)
Bacterial Load Pre- and Post-Laser Debridement
Time Frame: Day 1 of the laser procedure (immediately before and after)
Bacterial load in wound as per tissue biopsy, pre- and post-laser debridement. CFU = Colony Forming Units.
Day 1 of the laser procedure (immediately before and after)
Bacterial Load Pre- and Post-Sharp Debridement
Time Frame: Day 1 of the sharp procedure (immediately before and after)
Bacterial load in wound as per tissue biopsy, pre- and post-sharp debridement
Day 1 of the sharp procedure (immediately before and after)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient Preference
Time Frame: 2 weeks
Patient-reported preference of debridement type one week after study completion, reported as the count of participants that preferred either method.
2 weeks
Percent Change in Wound Size- Immediately Post-debridement
Time Frame: Day 1 of the respective procedure (immediately after)
The mean wound size increased immediately after debridement in both Groups, compared to the mean wound size before the debridement.
Day 1 of the respective procedure (immediately after)
Percent Change in Wound Size - 1 Week Post-debridement
Time Frame: 1 week following respective procedure
The mean percent change in wound size 1-week post-laser debridement was -20.8% ± 80.1%, as compared with -36.7% ± 54.3% 1-week post-sharp debridement (p = 0.6).
1 week following respective procedure

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Stanford University

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Director: Shannon Meyer, CCRC, Clinical Trial Coordinator

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
January 5, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 17, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
March 17, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 31, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 7, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 9, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
March 30, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
March 16, 2020

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
March 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • IRB-35141

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Study Data/Documents

  1. Study Protocol

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

Yes

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Diabetic Foot Ulcer

Clinical Trials on Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Debridement

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings