Conventional Dressings versus Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Hydrojel Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Prospective Case–Control Study
Conventional Dressings versus Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Hydrojel Dressing
Keywords:
diabetic foot ulcer, infections, conventional dressings, VAC (vacuum-assisted closure), wound closure, hydrojelAbstract
Comparison between conventional dressings, vacuum assisted dressing and hydrojel dressing in the healing of diabetic foot ulcerations in terms of healing duration. Method: Randomized case–control study enrolling 60 patients, divided into three groups. Group A [patients treated with VAC] and Group B [patients treated with conventional dressings] and Group C [hydrojel dressing] with an equal number of patients in each group. Diabetic foot ulcers were treated until wound closure, either spontaneously, surgically, or until completion of the 8-week period. [Ravi S NJIRM 2017; 8(3):130-134]
References
1. IDF Diabetes. Chapter 2: The global burden. 2013. pp. 29–49. Available from: http://www.idf.org/sites/default/ files/EN_6E_Ch2_the_Global_Burden.pdf.
2. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293:217–228.
3. Reiber GE. Epidemiology and health care costs of diabetic foot problems. In: Veves A, Giurini JM, LoGerfo FW, editor(s) , editors. The Diabetic Foot. New Jersey: Humana Press; 2002. pp. 35–58.
4. Frykberg RG, Zgonis T, Armstrong DG, Driver VR, Giurini JM, Kravitz SR, Landsman AS, Lavery LA, Moore JC, Schuberth JM, et al. Diabetic foot disorders. A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision) J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;45:S1–66.
5. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del Aguila M, Smith DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:157–162.
6. Richard JL, Sotto A, Lavigne JP. New insights in diabetic foot infection. World J Diabetes. 2011;2:24–32. [PMC free article] [PubMe
7. Okan D., Woo K., and Ayello EA.: The role of moisture balance in wound healing. Adv Skin Wound Care 2007; 20:39.
8. Attinger CE., Janis JE., Steinberg J., Schwartz J., Al-Attar A., and Couch K.: Clinical approach to wounds: debridement and wound bed preparation including the use of dressings and wound healing adjuvants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117(7S):72
9. Morin RJ. and Tomaselli NL.: Interactive dressings and topical agents. Clin Plast Surg 2007; 34:643.
10. Wagner FW. The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:64–122.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
2. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293:217–228.
3. Reiber GE. Epidemiology and health care costs of diabetic foot problems. In: Veves A, Giurini JM, LoGerfo FW, editor(s) , editors. The Diabetic Foot. New Jersey: Humana Press; 2002. pp. 35–58.
4. Frykberg RG, Zgonis T, Armstrong DG, Driver VR, Giurini JM, Kravitz SR, Landsman AS, Lavery LA, Moore JC, Schuberth JM, et al. Diabetic foot disorders. A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision) J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;45:S1–66.
5. Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ, del Aguila M, Smith DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:157–162.
6. Richard JL, Sotto A, Lavigne JP. New insights in diabetic foot infection. World J Diabetes. 2011;2:24–32. [PMC free article] [PubMe
7. Okan D., Woo K., and Ayello EA.: The role of moisture balance in wound healing. Adv Skin Wound Care 2007; 20:39.
8. Attinger CE., Janis JE., Steinberg J., Schwartz J., Al-Attar A., and Couch K.: Clinical approach to wounds: debridement and wound bed preparation including the use of dressings and wound healing adjuvants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117(7S):72
9. Morin RJ. and Tomaselli NL.: Interactive dressings and topical agents. Clin Plast Surg 2007; 34:643.
10. Wagner FW. The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle. 1981;2:64–122.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
Downloads
Published
2018-02-04
How to Cite
satasia, R., solanki, K., & katara, S. (2018). Conventional Dressings versus Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Hydrojel Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Prospective Case–Control Study: Conventional Dressings versus Vacuum-Assisted Closure and Hydrojel Dressing. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine, 8(3), 130–134. Retrieved from http://www.nicpd.ac.in/ojs-/index.php/njirm/article/view/1261
Issue
Section
Original Articles
