Demystifying Myths on Prontosan®

Demystifying Myths on Prontosan®

Prontosan® has been around for many years, yet there are some misconceptions around the use of Prontosan®.

Myth 1: Prontosan® can only be used on infected wounds

Not correct.

Biofilm is the primary barrier to healing.  Prontosan® Irrigation Solution and Prontosan® Wound Gel/Gel X are indicated for cleansing, rinsing, and decontaminating acute, chronic wounds, and burns that are at risk of infection by aiding the removal of bacteria and debris, and disrupting biofilm. 

Over 90% of chronic wounds and over 6% of acute wounds contain biofilm1 which is a major barrier to wound healing.  Biofilm development and inflammatory host response occurs within 6 hours.  Chronic wounds are usually coated with slough, necrotic tissue and/or biofilm.  These coatings are extremely difficult to remove and may delay normal wound healing.  Therefore it is important to use a wound cleanser with superior cleansing activity like Prontosan Wound Irrigation Solution.  

Proper cleansing and decontamination is also indicated in acute wounds since these are generally contaminated with foreign body, debris and micro-organisms.  It is well known that such contamination can cause a delay in healing and give rise to complications like infection.

As indicated in the JWC International Consensus2: Defying hard to heal wounds using an early biofilm intervention strategy: wound hygiene, it is recommended to cleanse the wound and periwound as the first step of wound hygiene to address biofilm in all hard to heal wounds.

Myth 2: Prontosan® is not compatible with silicone and foam dressings

Not correct. 

Compatibility tests and many years of usage have shown there is no interaction or limitations in use between Prontosan® and foam or silicone dressings, they can be perfectly combined in treatment.  The combined use of Prontosan® with foam or silicone has been carefully monitored.  No difference or effects on the dressings has been noticed3


Myth 3: The price of Prontosan® Wound Irrigation Solution and Prontosan® Gel/Gel X is too expensive. Normal Saline is more cost effective.

Not correct. 

The clinical evidence demonstrates that by routinely introducing a Prontosan regime as part of your patient pathway you will achieve better results including: Improved patient outcomes, including time to heal; helps to prevent complications; and helps to reduce spend on antimicrobials and antibiotics.

In a model calculation from the UK, based on the average reduction in treatment time of patients with Venous Leg Ulcers, the cost saving from changing to the Prontosan® regime compared to saline is, on average £400 per patient4.

How Prontosan® Saves You Money

Breakdown of wound care costs5 Cost drivers How Prontosan® reduces costs
40% Inpatient costs

Increased number of bed days

Complication rates

Infection rates reduced from 40% to 3%5

Inflammatory signs reduced. BWAT Score p=0.00436  

Decrease in incidence of reduction in bacterial counts4  

40% Nursing time Length of treatment time

Treatment time reduced from 17 to 13 weeks7  

Wound size reduction. BWAT Score p=0.049. Granulation tissue improvement. BWAT Score p=0.0436  

20% Dressing

Cost of dressings

Frequency of dressing changes

Dressing changes5

Silver dressings5



1.  Attinger, Christopher and Randy Wolcott. “Clinically Addressing Biofilm in Chronic Wounds.” Advances in Wound Care 1.3 (2012): 127-132. 

2. Murphy C, Atkin L, Swanson T, Tachi M, Tan YK, Vega de Ceniga M, Weir D, Wolcott R. International consensus document. Defying hard-to-heal wounds with an early antibiofilm intervention strategy: wound hygiene. J Wound Care 2020; 29(Suppl 3b):S1–28.

3. DG Kammerlander, KP Gerhard, Use of Prontosan with modern moist wound healing dressings, 2002.

4. Collier Mark, "Evidence Of The Reduction Of Hospital Acquired Infections (HCAI'S) Followinf the Introduction Of A Standard Antimicrobial Wound Cleansing Solution To All Surgical Areas Within A Large Acute NHS Trust In The UK". Wounds UK 2014.

5. Moller A, Kaehn K, Nolte A. Experiences with the use of polyhexanide-containing wound products in the management of chronic wounds — results of a methodical and retrospective analysis of 953 patients. Wund Management, 2008; 3: 112-117.

6. Bellingeri, A. et al. “Effect Of A Wound Cleansing Solution On Wound Bed Preparation And Inflammation In Chronic Wounds: A Single-Blind RCT”. Journal of Wound Care 25.3 (2016): 160-168. Web.

7. Andriessen, AE and T Eberlein. “Assessment Of A Wound Cleansing Solution In The Treatment Of Problem Wounds”. Wounds 20.6 (2008): 171-175. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.