Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. A prospective randomized evaluation of negative-pressure wound dressings for diabetic foot wounds.
Diabetic foot wounds present a great challenge to wound care practitioners. The objective of this pilot study was to determine whether vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy would afford quicker wound resolution as compared to saline-moistened gauze in the treatment of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ten patients were randomized into either the experimental V.A.C. group or control saline gauze group. Included in the study were diabetic patients 18 to 75 years of age who had a nonhealing foot ulceration. Excluded were those patients with venous disease, coagulopathy, or those who had active infections not resolved by initial surgical debridement. All foot ulcers were surgically debrided prior to initiation of V.A.C. or gauze treatment. In the experimental group, V.A.C. dressings were applied in accordance with manufacturer's protocol for chronic wounds and changed every 48 hours. In the control group, saline gauze dressings were applied at the time of surgical debridement and changed twice a day thereafter. Measurements and photos were obtained to document wound progress. Main outcome measures included: 1) time to satisfactory healing (calculated from date of initial debridement to date of definitive closure, and 2) change in wound surface area (calculated from initial wound tracing to final tracing). Satisfactory healing in the V.A.C. group was achieved in 22.8 (+/- 17.4) days, compared to 42.8 (+/- 32.5) days in the control group. Surface area changes of 28.4% (+/- 24.3) average decrease in wound size in the V.A.C. group, compared to a 9.5% (+/- 16.9) average increase in the control group during measurement period. Optimal treatment for large diabetic foot wounds is ill defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of wound healing with the Vacuum Assisted Closure device trade mark (VAC) to conventional moist dressings in the treatment of large diabetic foot wounds. Diabetics with significant soft tissue defects of the foot were considered for enrollment. Patients were randomized to receive either moist gauze dressings or VAC treatments for 2 weeks, after which they were treated with the alternative dressing for an additional 2 weeks. Wounds were photographed weekly and wound dimensions calculated in a blinded fashion with spatial analysis software. Percent change in wound dimensions were calculated and compared for each weekly assessment and over 2 weeks of therapy with each dressing type. Ten patients were enrolled in the trial, but two were lost to follow-up and two were withdrawn. Complete data were available for analysis on seven wounds in six patients. Average length, width, and depth of the wounds at initiation of the trial was 7.7, 3.5, and 3.1 cm, respectively. Only the wound depth was significantly decreased over the weeks of the trial to 1.2 cm ( p < 0.05). VAC dressings decreased the wound volume and depth significantly more than moist gauze dressings (59% vs. 0% and 49% vs. 8%, respectively). VAC dressings were associated with a decrease in all wound dimensions while wound length and width increased with moist dressings. In summary, over the first several weeks of therapy, VAC dressings decreased wound depth and volume more effectively than moist gauze dressings. Negative-pressure wound treatment may accelerate closure of large foot wounds in the diabetic patient.
There is evidence to suggest that hydrogel increases the healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers compared with gauze dressings or standard care. There is insufficient evidence (one small trial, abstract only) of the effects of larval therapy on diabetic foot ulcers. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of a range of widely used debridement methods and of debridement per se.