Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy with moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers with non-revascularisable peripheral vascular disease
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20172575Keywords:
Diabetic foot ulcer, Negative pressure wound therapy, Non-healing wounds, Peripheral vascular diseaseAbstract
Background: Diabetic foot problems are the commonest reason for hospitalization of diabetic patients (about 30% of admissions) and absorb some 20% of the total health-care costs of the disease more than all other diabetic complication. The numbers of patients with chronic wounds and wound complications continues to increase. Wound management is a challenge in diabetic wound. Chronic wounds require significant medical, nursing and financial input with poor long-term results. One-third of all diabetic patients have significant peripheral neuropathy and/or peripheral vascular disease (PVD). In India prevalence of foot ulcers in diabetic patients in clinic population is 3%. Over the past several years negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) using vacuum- assisted closure has emerged as the treatment of complex wounds of the diabetic foot. Many reports on the use of Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) therapy after failed revascularization have found increased chances of success. Clinicians should consider negative pressure wound therapy as an adjunct to other modalities in an effort to avoid complications.
Methods: Total of 51 patients were included in this prospective study. They were randomly divided into two groups, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) group (25 patients) and control group (26 patients) who were treated with regular dressings. All the patients included had peripheral vascular disease which was declared non-revascularisable after vascular workup. Initial mean surface area was measured in each patient. Transcutaneous oxygen pressure was recorded in all the patients and each patient followed up based on their granulation tissue development and need for amputation in each group.
Results: After wound management, mean surface area of the diabetic wounds was 39.08cm2 in the NPWT group (P=0.019), and 38.63cm2 in the control group (P=0.327). The use of NPWT may be an effective initial wound therapy to achieve faster wound bed granulation showing signs of healing in 19 among 25 patients (76%) compared to control group 7 showed granulation among 26 patients (26%) (P=0.001). The incidence of secondary higher amputation in NPWT group is 6/25 (24%), the control group 17/26 (65%) (P=0.003), suggesting reduced incidence of secondary higher amputations in NPWT group. After treatment, the experimental group significantly improved in measures of foot ulcer surface area compared with the control group. Further studies are needed to clarify the effects and indications and to modify the technique of this alternative treatment for use on non healing wounds.
Conclusions: NPWT-treated patients reached a successful wound treatment endpoint more rapidly, and the benefit was apparent in all wound sizes. NPWT appears to be a safer and efficacious method, than moist wound therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Metrics
References
Assal JP. Patient education in diabetes. In: Recent Trends in Diabetic Research, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksel International. 1982:276-289.
Thomson FJ, Veves A, Ashe H, Knowles EA, Gem J, Walker MG, Hirst P, Boulton AJ. A team approach to diabetic foot care- the Manchester experience. Foot. 1991;1(2):75-82.
Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcer in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293:217-28.
Boulton AJM, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. The global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet. 2005;366:1719-24.
Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Prevalence of diabetes -related foot ulcers and amputations: a cost-utility analysis based on Markov model simulations. Diabetologia. 2001;44:2077-87.
Williams R, Airey M. The size of the problem: economic aspects of foot problems in diabetes. In: Boulton AJM, Connor H, Cavanagh PR, eds. The Foot in Diabetes, 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley; 2000:3-17.
Janka HU, Stand IE and Mehnert H. Peripheral vascular disease in diabetes mellitus and its relation to cardiovascular risk factor: screening with Doppler ultrasonic technique. Diabetes Care. 1980;3:207-93.
Palumbo PJ, Melton LJ. Peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. In: Harris MI, Hamman RF, eds. Diabetes in America, NIH 1985; publ no.85-1468. Washington: US Government Printing Office; 1985:XVI-21.
Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM. Negative pressure wound therapy (VAC). In: Boulton AJM, Cavanagh PR, Rayman G, eds. The Foot in Diabetes, 4th edn. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2006:360-364.
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Diabetic Foot Study Consortium. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1704-10.
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 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:631-6.
Lillis K. Effective wound care requires look at total patient picture. Healthcare purchasing News. 2003;27(1):32.
Cipolla J, Baillie DR, Steinberg SM, Martin ND, Jaik NP, Lukaszczyk JJ, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy: Unusual and innovative applications. OPUS 12 Scientist. 2008;2(3):15-29.
The Challenges of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Clinical Practice. Today's Wound Clinic. Available at www.todayswoundclinic.com. Accessed on 20 April 2017.
Helena B, Kate B. Vacuum-Assisted Closure. Nursing Times. 2001;97(35):51-2.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
