Show Notes
In this episode John, Sue and Paul welcome Georgie Hollis back to the platform for the second half of their discussion of all things wound-related.
Log this CPD with 1CPD here
SHOW NOTES Intro (00:14) John re-introduces the ‘Queen of Wounds’ conversation from last episode’s part one.
Chapter 1 – Debridement or indeed 'debridement' in French
(01:00) Sue asks about biofilms and how she would suggest dealing with this slime over the wound. Georgie touches on diabetic foot ulcers and uses a pepper analogy for bacteria, saying a sprinkling of bacteria like pepper on the chips is where you can shake the chips and the pepper comes off. Colonisation is where the pepper is sticking to the chips and isn’t going to move, and biofilm is where the pepper has now forming its own protein coat around it and the vinegar is not going to penetrate it. So, biofilm formation is an important consideration as the body can’t remove them – it is hard to see them and know when you have them and so it is hard to know if you have removed them. You can use some antiseptic solutions to help remove these such as hypochlorous or PHMVs.
(03:35) Sue asks about honey and whether this is helpful. Georgie says honey is useful for wounds with yellow debris, as this has some properties to remove dead tissue and so is a debriding agent as well as an antiseptic. So using the yellow stuff on the yellow wounds, which gets rid of the bioburden and then the antiseptic gets rid of the contamination.
(05:27) John asks about debridement and when you would do this. Georgie says debridement gets rid of non viable tissue, where it had been damaged and the blood supply has been cut off – this is protein rich material and the bacteria will eat this and therefore you don’t want it in the wound. Manual removal of as much as possible using a scalpel under anaesthetic or with products such as honey, called autolytic debridement which uses osmosis by using sugar to draw out the dead stuff much like a poultice
(07:24) Sue asks about medical maggots and Georgie says these rather than autolytic debridement magots use enzymatic debridement where you use enzymes to break down dead tissue. So the maggots vomit the enzyme protease into the wound and this makes a protein soup which they then eat and then they poo into the wound which has been shown to have beneficial effects on granulation tissue.
(08:41) John asks then whether this pushes the owners again to go to the vet to make the decision as to whether debridement is necessary. Georgie agrees and says this goes further, where there may be different times when this is necessary, talking about a process of demarcation; so it may not be that you can tell which part of the wound is going to die and need debridement straight away. This is an important consideration, because you don’t want to cut off skin which may still be viable, meaning that it still has a blood supply and could play an important role in reducing the size of the wound.
Chapter 2 - Dressings
(10:03) Sue asks about what considerations there are with selection of wound dressings and Georgie says you need three boxes in the cupboard. 1) dressings that help you debride, and clean the wound up and help it granulate. 2) dressings that donate moisture, to stop the wound drying out – citing a study from 1962 be George Winter which showed from pigs with wounds left open to the air that they healed 30-50% slower that wounds kept moist and covered. All of our modern selection of dressings is based upon this principle of keeping the wound moist as a result of this understanding, and it is important that these dressings are left in place long enough for the wound to heal, as changing the dressing too regularly can remove cells regenerated on the wound. 3) dressings that absorb moisture absorb exudate and hold moisture to the wound as long as possible to aid healing, such as super absorbent foam dressings for large wounds. So, this is a balancing act and a
More from The Skin Flint Podcast
CHAPTER 1 – Rosanna’s 2 Pennies Worth This month, Sue, John and Paul welcome Rosanna Marsella to the platform - Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Dermatology and Professor at the University of Florida. 03:57 – John invites Rosanna to introduce herself. Thirty years as a veterinary dermatologist at the University of Florida, teaching, researching and treating small-animal allergy alongside some large-animal work; Florida's climate means plenty of infections. 04:42 – John asks how she'd categorise pyoderma. Rosanna explains it's classified by depth: surface pyoderma (often the "hot spot"), superficial pyoderma (essentially bacterial folliculitis), and deep pyoderma, where infection breaches the follicle wall into the dermis (furunculosis). 05:35 – Sue asks how dysbiosis differs from surface pyoderma. Allergic dogs already have reduced microbiome diversity, which shifts sharply toward Staphylococcus during a flare; dysbiosis is that pre-pustular shift, while surface pyoderma is the acute inflammatory skin-barrier damage that follows. 07:45 – Sue asks what AMD looks like clinically. Rosanna describes the classic picture: thick-coated dogs developing intensely pruritic, erosive lesions almost overnight on the face, rump or hips, driven by an acute trigger plus moisture trapped against the skin. 09:01 – John asks how important it is to find the trigger rather than just treat the lesion. Miss it, Rosanna says, and the dog either won't fully respond or will relapse. 09:54 – John runs through the usual suspects - fleas, allergic skin disease, ear disease, trapped moisture, pain, boredom. Rosanna splits these into predisposing factors (thick coat, heat, humidity, swimming) and primary triggers, ranking fleas top: an oral flea product still needs the flea to bite before it works, so a flea-allergic dog may also need a repellent. 13:37 – Sue asks whether lesion distribution helps distinguish flea-driven AMD from other allergies. Rosanna's rule of thumb: the back half of the body is fleas until proven otherwise; facial lesions warrant a work-up for pollen allergy or Malassezia otitis, both intensely itchy in their own right. 17:07 – John asks Sue whether "fleas first" holds in the UK climate too. Sue agrees fleas should be ruled out in every case, even with fast-acting isoxazoline parasiticides on board. CHAPTER 2 – More Than Skin Deep
In this month's episode, Sue, John and Paul welcome Professor & Chief of Service (Dermatology) at UC Davis, Stephen D White to the podcast. Chapter 1: Sheep Skin Detectives (03:09) Sue sets the scope: primary-care perspective rather than rare autoimmune disease. Stephen confirms autoimmune skin disease is vanishingly rare in sheep (pemphigus foliaceus essentially unreported, bar one Barbary sheep case in a zoo). (06:10) Sue asks whether clinical distribution helps localise the cause in a pruritic sheep the way it does in a dog or cat. Stephen explains it's less reliable — thick wool can mask hair loss even with significant pruritus, though rubbing behaviour is usually evident. Lice are visible with a hand lens; mites are not. (08:07) Question on empirical response to treatment. Stephen notes lice usually respond well to licensed ectoparasiticides (mainly avermectins); isoxazolines are unlicensed in ruminants and unreported in sheep specifically (though used in camelids, and anecdotally a bighorn sheep). Repeat treatment at 2–4 weeks is usually needed to catch hatching eggs. Chapter 2: Suspect Number 1 - Ectoparasites (11:30) John asks for top differentials in a pruritic sheep, Stephen answers: “ectoparasites, ectoparasites, and ectoparasites” — mites, lice and sheep keds (which are insects, not mites). He stresses checking in-contact sheep, since one animal may be subclinical while another is severely affected. (13:49) Sue asks why would a referral centre see an ectoparasite case at all? Stephen: usually a failed or incomplete owner-applied treatment, or a backyard sheep simply not monitored closely enough for early signs. (15:29) On technique: always scrape if pruritic, using a medical-grade spatula rather than a blade (sheep are skittish; a slip with a blade causes injury). An otoscope with the cone removed doubles as a magnifier and light source. Dermatophytosis should also be considered — often presenting as facial alopecia rather than fleece loss — and can coexist with ectoparasitism. (15:09) John ask about photosensitisation. Stephen distinguishes hepatogenous causes (impaired phylloerythrin metabolism from hepatotoxic plants, or a genetic defect in Corriedale lambs) from primary photodynamic plant ingestion (e.g. St John's Wort). Lesions favour the head and distal limbs. Flock-wide cases point to an environmental cause (send hay/pasture samples to the local extension lab); idiosyncratic reactions (as seen with clover in horses) may occur but are poorly documented in ruminants. Chapter 3: Dermatological Movie Stars (26:48) John introduces orf, referencing its cameo in Sheep Detectives. Stephen describes it as a parapoxvirus infection, usually self-limiting, but causing anorexia through oral pain — a problem in production settings. A non-resolving “super orf” form causes severe weight loss. Stephen shares data from the retrospective study: of ten orf-affected sheep, five were euthanised, due to generalised cutaneous lesions or concurrent Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis abscesses — evidence that orf can significantly compromise immune function. One case of orf-associated facial alopecia resolved fully once the virus cleared. (31:07) On zoonotic risk and management: gloves are essential when handling any crusting lesion in sheep or goats. Management includes moistening hay to ease painful feeding, antibiotics for secondary bacterial infection, and parenteral treatment or stomach tubing in severe anorexia. (33:17) Sue asks about bacterial skin disease. Stephen identifies C. pseudotuberculosis and staphylococcal abscesses as the main presentations — often large, anywhere on the body, commonly peri udder in females. Internal abscessation (lungs, liver) is a key concern; aspirated purulent masses warrant involving a large-animal colleague, with caution against environmental contamination during drainage. Dermatophilosis is discussed as globally widespread and rain-associated, presenting dorsally, or interdigi
In this episode of Skinflints, we are joined by veterinary dermatologist Dr Stephen Shaw to discuss the role of JAK inhibitors in managing canine atopic dermatitis. Stephen explains the underlying disease process, highlighting the key cytokines involved in itch and inflammation, and how JAK inhibitors provide rapid, broad-spectrum control by blocking these signalling pathways. The discussion explores how treatment should be tailored to each individual dog, considering disease severity, secondary infections and long-term management goals. Stephen also explains the benefits of using JAK inhibitors during food trials, their role alongside other therapies, and practical considerations such as monitoring, vaccination and managing concurrent disease. The episode concludes by emphasising the importance of evidence-based treatment, informed owner discussions and regular clinical assessment, reinforcing that successful management relies on selecting the right therapy for each patient rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. This episode is kindly sponsored by MSD Animal Health
(00:00:00) John introduces a new episode on Feline Orofacial Pain Syndrome (FOPS) — a baffling condition where cats can flip from calm to frantic self-injury around the mouth and face in seconds.