Conventional treatment versus vacuum therapy for diabetic foot ulcers treatment

Vigna Sai Potula

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20175482

Authors

Vigna Sai Potula Department of General Surgery, Meenakshi Medical College Hospital and Research Institute, Enathur, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20175482

Keywords:

Diabetes mellitus, ECM

Abstract

Background: This study compares the efficacy of vacuum therapy against conventional iodine povidone dressing with respect to area and time of ulcer.

Methods: This study is a randomized controlled trail which was conducted in Meenakshi Medical College hospital and research institute Enathur Kanchipuram. The number of patients selected were 50, which were divided into 2 groups, Group A which consisted of 25 and received vacuum therapy, Group B which consisted of 25 and received povidone-iodine solution.

Results: This study was a 16 days study, mean area of ulcer on day 0 was 11.25 cm2 in group B, 10.89 cm² in group A. On day 6, mean area of ulcer was 10.44 cm² in group B, 8.98 cm² in group A. Mean area of ulcer was 10.39 cm² in group B, 7.66 cm² in group A on the end of the day 16. The results show that both the groups showed decrease in the area of ulcers, but patients in group A who underwent vacuum therapy have shown greater decrease in the mean area of ulcer. The decrease in surface area of ulcer was statistically significant i.e. p=0.025. There was a greater decrease in infection in group A on 16^th day compared to group A on 16t^h day. On day 0, 48% and 60% growth of microorganisms was observed in patients of group B and group A respectively (p=0.428). On day 16, 28% and 8% growth of microorganisms was observed in patients of group B and group A respectively (p=0.034).

Conclusions: Vacuum therapy was more effective compared to conventional method of povidone-iodone solution dressing in rate of healing and time of healing.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis of wound healing in diabetes. J Clinical Investigation. 2007;117(5):1219.

Turns M. Diabetic foot ulcer management: the podiatrist's perspective. British J Community Nursing. 2013;18(12).

Scott G. The diabetic foot examination: A positive step in the prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and amputation. Osteopathic Family Physician. 2013;5(2):73-8.

Wu SC, Driver VR, Wrobel JS, Armstrong DG. Foot ulcers in the diabetic patient, prevention and treatment. Vascular Health Risk Management. 2007;3(1):65.

Sweitzer SM, Fann SA, Borg TK, Baynes JW, Yost MJ. What is the future of diabetic wound care?. The Diabetes Educator. 2006;32(2):197-210.

Sussman C. Wound Care: a collaborative practice manual, third edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2007;21-47.

Kajagar BM, Joshi K. Efficacy of Vacuum-Assisted Closure Therapy versus Conventional Povidone Iodine Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Randomized Control Trial. Int J Health Sciences Research. 2017;7(5).

Akbari A, Moodi H, Ghiasi F, Sagheb HM, Rashidi H. Effects of vacuum-compression therapy on healing of diabetic foot ulcers: randomized controlled trial. J Rehabilitation Research Development. 2007;44(5):631.

Paola DL, Carone A, Ricci S, Russo A, Ceccacci T, Ninkovic S. Use of vacuum assisted closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. J Diabetic Foot Complications. 2010;2(2):33-44.

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(1):233-45.