A comparative analysis of vacuum assisted closure therapy and conventional dressings: outcomes in chronic diabetic foot ulcers among Indian patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20243004Keywords:
DFUs, VAS, Wound dressingsAbstract
Background: India faces a growing diabetes epidemic, with approximately 77 million individuals affected. Chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common complication of diabetes and a major healthcare challenge in Conventional wound care methods often result in prolonged healing times, increasing the risk of infection, hospitalization, and amputations. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy, a modern treatment modality, offers a potentially more effective approach to managing these ulcers.
Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in India from March 2022 to March 2024. One hundred patients with chronic non-healing DFUs were randomized into VAC therapy or conventional dressing groups. The primary outcomes included wound size reduction and healing time, while secondary outcomes involved patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.
Results: VAC therapy significantly reduced wound size (65.2% vs. 40.5%) and shortened healing time (6.2 vs. 10.9 weeks) compared to conventional dressings. Additionally, VAC therapy led to higher patient satisfaction and proved more cost-effective due to fewer dressing changes and shorter hospital stays.
Conclusions: VAC therapy outperforms conventional dressings in managing DFUs, offering faster healing, better patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Expanding its use in India could greatly improve diabetic foot care outcomes.
Metrics
References
Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, Belma M, Suvi K, Nigel U, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843.
Ghosh P, Valia R. Burden of diabetic foot ulcers in India: evidence landscape from published literature. Value Health. 2017;20:A485.
Mohsin F, Javaid S, Tariq M, Mustafa M. Molecular immunological mechanisms of impaired wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), current therapeutic strategies and future directions. Int Immunopharmacol. 2024;139:112713.
Mills JL, Conte MS, Armstrong DG, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Threatened Limb Classification System: Risk stratification based on Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI). J Vascular Surg. 2014;59(1):220-34.
Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, Robert K, Lynn L, Thomas KH, et al. Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17(6):763-71.
Guest JF, Vowden K, Vowden P. The health economic burden that acute and chronic wounds impose on an average clinical commissioning group/health board in the UK. J Wound Care. 2017;26(6):292-303.
Agarwal P, Kukrele R, Sharma D. Vacuum assisted closure (VAC)/negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for difficult wounds: A review. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(5):845-8.
Mehta VP, Suvariya M, Singh S, Makwana C. A comparative study of regular dressing versus negative dressing in management of patients with diabetic foot. Adv Hum Biol. 2024;14(1):68-72.
Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG. Wound Microbiology and Associated Approaches to Wound Management. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2001;14(2):244-69.
Laurano R, Boffito M, Ciardelli G, Chiono V. Wound dressing products: A translational investigation from the bench to the market. Engineered Regeneration. 2022;3(2):182-200.
Panagariya A. The challenges and innovative solutions to rural health dilemmas. Ann Neurosci. 2014;21(4):125-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
