The ‘ring of fire’ phenomenon in chronic wounds: A new insight using fluorescence imaging
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63676/9n1yrp67Keywords:
Bacterial load, fluorescence imaging, optical imaging, wound healingAbstract
Aim: To describe the ‘ring of fire’ phenomenon observed during fluorescence imaging of chronic wounds.
Methods: The Fluorescence Imaging Assessment and Guidance (FLAAG) trial evaluated 350 patients with a variety of chronic wounds. During the FLAAG trial, the investigators observed a phenomenon when wounds were imaged using the MolecuLight i:X imaging device: bacteria fluorescence aggregated at the margin of the wound. This was most pronounced in diabetic foot ulcers. The term ‘ring of fire’ was coined to describe this clinical observation.
Results: Six representative patients taken from the FLAAG trial are presented to demonstrate the ‘ring of fire’ in a variety of wound types. This included three diabetic foot ulcers, two venous leg ulcers and a surgical site infection following lumbar back surgery.
Conclusion: This is the first clinical report of this phenomenon. It highlights the importance of focusing on the wound edge when managing nonhealing wounds.
References
1. Fife CE, Eckert KA, Carter MJ. Publicly reported wound healing rates: the fantasy and the reality. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2018;7(3):77-94. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2017.0743
2. Frykberg RG, Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015;4(9):560-582. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0635
3. Lantis JC 2nd, Marston WA, Farber A et al. The influence of patient and wound variables on healing of venous leg ulcers in a randomized controlled trial of growth-arrested allogeneic keratinocytes and fibroblasts. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(2):433-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.055
4. Robson MC, Heggers JP. Delayed wound closure based on bacterial counts. J Surg Oncol. 1970;2(4):379-383. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.2930020410
5. Le L, Baer M, Briggs P et al. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care fluorescence imaging for the detection of bacterial burden in wounds: results from the 350-patient fluorescence imaging assessment and guidance trial. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2021;10(3):123-136. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1272
6. Lopez AJ, Jones LM, Reynolds L et al. Detection of bacterial fluorescence from in vivo wound biofilms using a point-of-care fluorescence imaging device. Int Wound J. 2021;18(5):626-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13564
7. Serena TE, Gould L, Ousey K, Kirsner RS. Reliance on Clinical Signs and Symptoms Assessment Leads to Misuse of Antimicrobials: Post hoc Analysis of 350 Chronic Wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2022;11(12):639-649. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2021.0146
8. Falanga V, Isseroff RR, Soulika AM et al. Chronic wounds. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-022-00377-3
9. Serena TE, Snyder RJ, Bowler PG. Use of fluorescence imaging to optimize location of tissue sampling in hard-to-heal wounds. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;12:1070311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.1070311
10. Johnson J, Johnson AR Jr, Andersen CA, Kelso MR, Oropallo AR, Serena TE. Skin pigmentation impacts the clinical diagnosis of wound infection: imaging of bacterial burden to overcome diagnostic limitations. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2024;11(2):1045-1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-023-01584-8
11. Rennie MY, Dunham D, Lindvere-Teene L, Raizman R, Hill R, Linden R. Understanding real-time fluorescence signals from bacteria and wound tissues observed with the MolecuLight i:XTM. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019;9(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9010022
12. James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R et al. Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16(1):37-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00321.x
13. Wernick B, Nahirniak P, Stawicki SP. Impaired wound healing. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482254/ (accessed 18 September 2025)
14. Zhao G, Usui ML, Lippman SI et al. Biofilms and inflammation in chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013;2(7):389-399. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2012.0381
15. Cavallo I, Sivori F, Mastrofrancesco A et al. Bacterial biofilm in chronic wounds and possible therapeutic approaches. Biology (Basel). 2024;13(2):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology13020109
16. Angel DE, Lloyd P, Carville K, Santamaria N. The clinical efficacy of two semi-quantitative wound-swabbing techniques in identifying the causative organism(s) in infected cutaneous wounds. Int Wound J. 2011 Apr;8(2):176-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00765.x
17. Serena TE, Bowler PG, Schultz GS, D’souza A, Rennie MY. Are semi-quantitative clinical cultures inadequate? Comparison to quantitative analysis of 1053 bacterial isolates from 350 wounds. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(7):1239. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071239.
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request which takes into account patient privacy requirements.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Tissue Repair
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
