A randomized controlled trial comparing low cost vacuum assisted dressings and conventional dressing methods in the management of diabetic foot ulcers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20175142Keywords:
Dressings, Diabetic ulcers, Vacuum assisted dressing, VAC therapyAbstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are chronic wounds which are difficult to heal, due to ischemia and intrinsic defects in angiogenesis and impaired immunity against infection. VAC therapy influences positive mechanical forces on the growth of tissues, especially in stimulating cell migration and mitosis, optimizes blood flow, decreases local tissue edema from the wound bed and provides an occlusive environment for wound healing under moist, clean and sterile conditions. Aims and objective was to compare the effectiveness of low cost hospital made VAC dressing with conventional dressings in healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial and included 60 patients with diabetic foot ulcers admitted over 3 months. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: odd numbered patients to VAC therapy and the even numbered patients to conventional dressings. Wound swab was taken before the start of the study. The data was analyzed and presented in percentages or proportions using Chi-square test and Student-t-test wherever applicable.
Results: In this study it was found that in the VAC dressing group 76.7% of the ulcers had red granulation tissue at the end of therapy compared to 46.7% in conventional group. The mean wound bed preparation time was found to be 15.60 days in the conventional dressing group and 8.50 days in the VAC therapy group. In the VAC group 72.73% ulcers had no bacteria at the end of therapy.
Conclusion: In this study, it was found that Vacuum Assisted Closure therapy was more effective than conventional dressings in the wound bed preparation of diabetic foot ulcers.
References
Shahi SK, Kumar A, Kumar S, Singh SK, Gupta S K, et al. Prevalence of diabetic foot ulcer and associated risk factors in diabetic patients from North India. J Diab Foot Complic. 2012;4(3):83-91.
Gupta S. Management of diabetic Foot. Medicine Update. 2012;22:287-93.
Brem H, Sheehan P, Boulton AJM. Protocol for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. American J Surg. 2004;187:1S-10S.
Nather A, Chionh SB, Hana YY, Chan PPL, Nambiar A. Effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy in the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2010;39:353-8.
Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-Assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:553-62.
Vuerstaek JDD, Tryfon V, Wuite J, Nelemans P, Neumann MHA, Veraart JCJM. State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure(VAC) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:1029-38.
Lone AM, Zaroo MI, Laway BA, Pala NA, Bashir SA, Rasool A. Vacuum-assisted closure versus conventional dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective case-control study. Diabetic Foot Ankle. 2014;5:23345.
Venturi ML, Attinger CE, Mesbahi AN, Hess CL, Graw KS. Mechanisms and Clinical Applications of the Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) Device. Americ J of Clinic Dermatol. 2005;6(3):85-194.
Jeffcoate WJ, Harding KG. Diabetic foot ulcers. The Lancet. 2003;361(3):1545-51.
Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, Botek G. Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet. 2005;366:1725-35.
Hilton JR, Williams DT, Beuker B, Miller DR, Harding KG. Wound dressings in diabetic foot disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2004;39: S100-3.
Steed DL, Attinger C, Colaizzi T, Crossland M, Franz M, Harkless L, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of diabetic ulcers. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2006;14(6):680-92.
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005:366:1704-10.
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(8):28-34.
Joseph E, Hamori CA, Bergman S. A prospective randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus standard therapy of chronic non-healing wounds. Wounds. 2000;12(3):60-7.
Lambert KV, Hayes P, McCarthy M. Vacuum Assisted Closure: A Review of Development and Current Applications. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29:219-26.
Moues CM, Heule, Hovius SER. A review of topical negative pressure therapy in wound healing: sufficient evidence? American J Surg. 2011;201:544-56.
Moues CM, Van Den Bemd GJ, Heule F, Hovius SE. Comparing conventional gauze therapy to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomised trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(6):672-81.
Weed, Tonja, Ratliff, Catherine RN, Drake, David B. Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy: does the wound vac enhance bacterial clearance? Annals Plastic Surgery. 2004;52(3):276-9.
Moues CM, Vos CM, Van Den Bemd CM, Stijnen T, Hovius SER. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2004;12(1):11-7.
Nain DS, Uppal S, Garg R, Bajaj K, Garg S. role of negative pressure wound therapy in healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Journal of Surgical Technique Case Report. 2011;3(1):17-22.
Braakenburg A, Obdeijn MC, Feitz R, van Rooij IA, van Griethuysen AJ, Klinkenbijl JH. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2006;118(2):390-7.
