Vacuum-assisted closure versus conventional dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective case-control study

Ali M Lone, Mohd I Zaroo, Bashir A Laway, Nazir A Pala, Sheikh A Bashir, Altaf Rasool, Ali M Lone, Mohd I Zaroo, Bashir A Laway, Nazir A Pala, Sheikh A Bashir, Altaf Rasool

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) versus conventional dressings in the healing of diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs) in terms of healing rate (time to prepare the wound for closure either spontaneously or by surgery), safety, and patient satisfaction.

Methods: Randomized case-control study enrolling 56 patients, divided into two groups. Group A (patients treated with VAC) and Group B (patients treated with conventional dressings), with an equal number of patients in each group. DFUs were treated until wound closure, either spontaneously, surgically, or until completion of the 8-week period.

Results: Granulation tissue appeared in 26 (92.85%) patients by the end of Week 2 in Group A, while it appeared in 15 (53.57%) patients by that time in Group B. 100% granulation was achieved in 21 (77.78%) patients by the end of Week 5 in Group A as compared to only 10 (40%) patients by that time in Group B. Patients in Group A had fewer number of positive blood cultures, secondary amputations and were satisfied with treatment as compared to Group B.

Conclusion: VAC appears to be more effective, safe, and patient satisfactory compared to conventional dressings for the treatment of DFUs.

Keywords: conventional dressings; diabetic foot ulcer; infections; vacuum-assisted closure; wound closure.

References

    1. Ahmed AM. History of diabetes mellitus. Saudi Med J. 2002;23:373–8.
    1. Nalini S, David G, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293:217–28.
    1. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del AM, Smith DG, Lavery LA, et al. Causal pathways for incident lower extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:157–62.
    1. American Diabetes Association. Consensus development conference on diabetic foot wound care. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1354–60.
    1. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Diabetic foot ulcers: prevention, diagnosis and classification. Am Fam Physician. 1998;57:1325–32.
    1. Frykberg RG. Diabetic foot ulcerations. In: Frykberg RG, editor. The high risk foot in diabetes mellitus. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991. pp. 151–95.
    1. Frykberg RG. Diabetic foot ulcers: current concepts. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998;37:440–6.
    1. Frykberg RG, Armstrong DG, Giurini J, Edwards A, Kravette M, Kravitz S, et al. Diabetic foot disorders: a clinical practice guideline. American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2000;39(5 Suppl):S1–60.
    1. White R, McIntosh C. Topical therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: standard treatments. J Wound Care. 2008;17:426–32.
    1. Ramanujam CL, Stapleton JJ, Zgonis T. Negative-pressure wound therapy in the management of diabetic Charcot foot and ankle wounds. Diabet Foot Ankle. 2013;4:20878.
    1. Joseph E, Hamori CA, Bergman S, Roaf E, Swann NF, Anastasi GW. Prospective randomized trial of vacuum assisted closure versus standard therapy of chronic non-healing wounds. Wounds. 2000;12:60–7.
    1. Philbeck TE, Schroeder WJ, Whittington KT. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy for diabetic foot ulcers: clinical and cost analysis. Home Health Consult. 2001;8:26–34.
    1. Schwien T, Gilbert J, Lang C. Pressure ulcer prevalence and the role of negative pressure wound therapy in home health quality outcomes. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005;51:47–60.
    1. Moisidis E, Heath T, Boorer C, Ho K, Deva AK. Prospective, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of topical negative pressure use in skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:917–22.
    1. Wagner FW. The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:64–122.
    1. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Diabetic Foot Study Consortium Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1704–10.
    1. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:631–6.
    1. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton B, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553–62.
    1. Prabhdeep SN, Sanjeev KU, Ramneesh G, Kuljyot B, Shirin G. Role of negative pressure wound therapy in healing of diabetic foot ulcers. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2011;3:17–22.
    1. McCallon SK, Knight CA, Valiulus JP, Cunningham MW, McCulloch JM, Farinas LP. Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000;46:28–32.
    1. Mark TE, Kellie RB, Gary RS, Jonathan BT, Robert AC. Prospective randomized evaluation of negative–pressure wound dressing for diabetic foot wounds. Ann Vasc Surg. 2003;17:645–9.
    1. Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Resource utilization and economic costs of care based on a randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. Am J Surg. 2008;195:782–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera