Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/302774807/12350-Review
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:24:43+00:00

Document:
Conflict-of-interest: The authors declared no conflict-of-interest.
diabetes mellitus, which affect 15% of diabetic patients during their lifetime.
especially by using a multidisciplinary team approach.
million people by 2030 will have DM[3,4].
and home care should be considered. In addition.5. rehabilitation. Indeed.12. 4 . These costs do not represent the total economic burden. 7%–20% of the total expenditure on diabetes in North America and Europe might be attributable to DFU. the rate of lower limb amputation in patients with DM is 15 times higher than patients without diabetes. there is an increased risk of ulcer progression that may ultimately lead to amputation. amputation. It is estimated that approximately 20% of hospital admissions among patients with DM are the result of DFU. once DFU has developed. In cases where lower extremity amputation is required.13]. gangrene. ETIOLOGY OF DIABETIC FOOT ULCER Recent studies have indicated multiple risk factors associated with the development of DFU[18-21]. it is estimated that 15% of patients with diabetes will suffer from DFU during their lifetime . and even death if necessary care is not provided . DFU is a common complication of DM that has shown an increasing trend over previous decades [5-7]. because indirect costs related to losses of productivity. Overall. health care is even more expensive at $30000–33500. When all this is considered. These risk factors are as follows: gender (male). In total. the prevalence of this complication ranges from 4%–27% [9-11]. To date.Patients with DM are prone to multiple complications such as diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). DFU can lead to infection. Furthermore. Although accurate figures are difficult to obtain for the prevalence of DFU. It is estimated that approximately 50%–70% of all lower limb amputations are due to DFU. preventive efforts. The previous literature indicates that healing of a single ulcer costs approximately $$17500 (1998 United States Dollars). it is reported that every 30 s one leg is amputated due to DFU in worldwide . DFU is considered as a major source of morbidity and a leading cause of hospitalization in patients with diabetes[1. DFU is responsible for substantial emotional and physical distress as well as productivity and financial losses that lower the quality of life . On the other hand.
However.20-22] (Figure 1). Today. infections. In recent years. neuropathic or combined neuroischemic abnormalities[6. and gait instability. peripheral vascular disease. high plantar pressure. As diabetes is a multi-organ systemic disease. numerous studies have shown that proper management of DFU can greatly reduce. gangrene. 5 . and even death[6. the incidence of neuroischemic problems has increased and neuroischemic ulcers are the most common ulcers seen in most United Kingdom diabetic foot clinics now. it has been demonstrated that foot deformities and gait instability increases plantar pressure.duration of diabetes longer than 10 years. and other comorbidities such as retinopathy.34].32]. delay.17] (Figure 2). foot deformity. glycated hemoglobin level (HbA1C). advanced age of patients. foot deformities. Although the literature has identified a number of diabetes related risk factors that contribute to lower-extremity ulceration and amputation. diabetic peripheral neuropathy. MANGMENT OF DIABETIC FOOT ULCER Unfortunately. high Body Mass Index.30]. to date most DFU has been caused by ischemic. amputation. and inappropriate foot self-care habits]1. The primary management goals for DFU are to obtain wound closure as expeditiously as possible[33. alone or with ischemia. the most common pathway to develop foot problems in patients with diabetes is peripheral sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathy that leads to high foot pressure. numerous investigations have shown that elevated plantar pressures are associated with foot ulceration[27-29]. which increases the risks of developing ulcers[24-26]. Pure ischemic ulcers probably represent only 10% of DFU and 90% are caused by neuropathy. or prevent complications such as infection. In total. Additionally.31. which can result in foot ulceration[24.12. often patients are in denial of their disease and fail to take ownership of their illness along with the necessary steps to prevent complication and to deal with the many challenges associated with the management of DFU.
1980 and July 28. and “foot care” as the medical subject heading (MeSH). numerous studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team can reduce amputation rates. blood sugar control. an orthotic specialist. and advanced therapies that are used clinically. can decrease the risks associated with DFU and amputation by 50%–85% . dieticians. It’s suggested that with applying this approach take appropriate strategies for management of DFU to consequently reduce the severity of complications. “growth factors”. endocrinologists. The American Diabetes Association has concluded that a preventive care team. lower costs. and Scopus. and orthopedic specialists . offloading. “bio-engineered skin“. 6 prospective and retrospective . a nurse. Science Direct. wound debridement. case-control studies. 2014 in the following five electronic databases: PubMed. for both English and non-English language articles with the following keywords: “diabetic foot ulcer”. Study designs that were included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS In this review article. “debridement”. In this article. we searched for articles published between March 1. and consultations with other specialists such as vascular surgeons. infectious disease specialists. “hyperbaric oxygen therapy”. Based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence strategies. “offloading modalities”. advanced dressing. “advanced dressings“. Web of Science.all comorbidities that affect wound healing must be managed by a multidisciplinary team for optimal outcomes with DFU[35-38]. improve overall quality of life. an educator. the management of DFU should be done immediately with a multidisciplinary team that consists of a general practitioner. Embase. “amputations”. and leads to better quality of life for patients with DFU  . we review available evidence on the management of DFU as follows: education. surgery. cohort studies. a podiatrist. “electrical stimulation”. defined as a multidisciplinary team. “negative pressure wound therapy”. Today. “wound management”. and increase the life expectancy of patients . dermatologists.
7 . Patients with DFU should be educated about risk factors and the importance of foot care. and blood sugar control]47].uncontrolled studies. and review studies. Case reports and case series were excluded. Blood sugar control In patients with DFU. Currently. In fact. education is better when combined with other care strategies. educating patients on foot self-management is considered the cornerstone to prevent DFU[12. The higher the HbA 1C level. Education It has been shown that up to 50% of DFU cases can be prevented by effective education. The best indicator of glucose control over a period of time is HbA 1C level. glucose control is the most important metabolic factor. the more glycosylation of hemoglobin in red blood cells will occur. Patient education programs need to emphasize patient responsibility for their own health and well-being. these methods can reduce the frequency and morbidity of the limb threatening complications caused by DFU]48]. cross-sectional studies.43-45]. This test measures the average blood sugar concentration over a 90-d span of the average red blood cell in peripheral circulation. including the need for self-inspection.49. However. The ultimate aim of foot care education for people with diabetes is to prevent foot ulcers and amputation. because previous reviews on patient education has suggested that when these methods were combined with a comprehensive approach. monitoring foot temperature. In fact. it is reported inadequate control of blood sugar is the primary cause of DFU[6. use of proper footwear. appropriate daily foot hygiene. a wide range and combinations of patient educational interventions have been evaluated for the prevention of DFU that vary from brief education to intensive education including demonstration and hands-on teaching . We searched bibliographies for all retrieved and relevant publications to identify other studies.50].
However. the authors found that patients with blood glucose values > 220 mg/dL had infection rates that were 2. Debridement Debridement is the removal of necrotic and senescent tissues as well as foreign and infected materials from a wound. In addition.1 mmol/L (equivalent to > 310 mg/mL or an HbA1C level of > 12) is associated with decreased neutrophil function.7 times higher than for patients with lower blood glucose values (31.57]. Furthermore. Pomposelli et al has indicated that a single blood glucose level > 220 mg/dL on the first postoperative day was a sensitive (87. surgical debridement has been shown to be more effective in DFU healing[54. It has been shown that for every 1% increase in HbA 1C. respectively). including neuropathy. it’s indicated that a 1% mean reduction in HbA1C was associated with a 25% reduction in micro vascular complications. there is an increase of 25%–28% in the relative risk of PAD. There are different kinds of debridement including surgical. including leukocyte chemotaxis . which is a primary cause of DFU. no RCT has been performed to determine whether improved glucose control has benefits after a foot ulcer has developed. evaluates the wound bed. Among these methods.5%) predictor of postoperative infection. Debridement seems to decrease bacterial counts and stimulates production of local growth factors. and facilitates wound drainage[32. Investigations have found that poor glucose control accelerated the manifestation of Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD). autolytic.59-62]. This method also reduces pressure. to date. enzymatic. a greater elevation of blood glucose level has been associated with a higher potential for suppressing inflammatory responses and decreasing host response to an infection. which is considered as the first and the most important therapeutic step leading to wound closure and a decrease in the possibility of limb amputation in patients with DFU [53-56].Studies have shown that blood glucose levels > 11. Indeed.3% vs 11. and biological (Table 1).5%. Surgical or sharp debridement involves cutting away dead 8 . mechanical.
some of retrospective [71. Despite the advantages of debridement.73-75]. including Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aurous. 9 . or wound closure procedures. which is also known as maggot therapy or larval therapy.001). larvae secrete a powerful autolytic enzyme that liquefies necrotic tissues. Surgical debridement should be repeated as often as needed if new necrotic tissue continues to form . preferences. however. An older debridement type that is categorized as biological debridement is maggot debridement therapy (MDT). It has been reported that regular (weekly) sharp debridement is associated with the rapid healing of ulcers than for less frequent debridement [59. Indeed. which may be expensive. This technique is indicated for open wounds and ulcers that contain gangrenous or necrotic tissues with or without infection . stimulates the healing processes. the more frequent the debridement.and infected tissues followed by daily application of saline moistened cotton gauze. To date. The method of debridement depends on characteristics. In a retrospective cohort study. These studies reported that MDT can significantly diminish wound odor and bacterial count. prevent hospital admission. In this method. In fact. and decrease the number of outpatient visits among patients with DFU[71. The main purpose of this type of debridement is to turn a chronic ulcer into an acute one. paucity of RCTs show efficacy of this method with DFU. adequate debridement must always precede the application of topical wound healing agents.64-66].73]. and ultimately wound healing[67-69]. Wilcox et al indicated that frequent debridement healed more wounds in a shorter time (P < 0. dressings. the better the healing outcome. disinfection. then other types of debridement could be used. and destroys bacterial biofilms [70-72]. and prospective studies have shown MDT as a clinically effective treatment for DFU. sterile and live forms of the Lucilia sericata larvae are applied to the wound to achieve debridement. When surgical or sharp debridement is not indicated. and practitioner level of expertise.
The contributory factors to the efficacy of TCC treatment are likely to be due to pressure redistribution and offloading from the ulcer area. a histologic examination of ulcer specimens has shown that patients treated with TCC before debridement had better healing as indicated by angiogenesis with the formation of granulation tissue than for patients treated with debridement alone as indicated by a predominance of inflammatory elements . Recent studies have provided evidence indicating that proper offloading promotes DFU healing [83-85] .82]. The cast is designed to relieve pressure from the ulcer and distribute pressure over the entire surface of the foot.Offloading The use of offloading techniques. the patient is unable to remove the cast. Based on this study. TCC is minimally padded and molded carefully to the shape of the foot with a heel for walking (Figure 3).90]. Fife et al has shown that TCC is vastly underutilized for DFU wound care in the United States. is considered the most important component for the management of neuropathic ulcers in patients with diabetes[81. In addition. Although many offloading modalities are currently in use (Table 2). In addition. only a few studies describe the frequency and rate of wound healing with some of the methods frequently used clinically. only 16% of patients with DFU used TCC as their 10 . and consequently improves wound healing. Mueller et al conducted an RCT that showed TCC healed a higher percentage of plantar ulcers at a faster rate when compared with the standard treatment. commonly known as pressure modulation. However. thus. which thereby forces compliance. The most effective offloading technique for the treatment of neuropathic DFU is total contact casts (TCC)[82. the frequency of side effects referred to in the literature and minimal patient acceptance make this approach inappropriate for wide applications [89. The choice of these methods is determined by patient physical characteristics and abilities to comply with the treatment along with the location and severity of the ulcer.87].86. protecting the site of the wound . reduces activity levels.
However. In addition.90] (Figure 4). and has fewer adverse effects than traditional TCC . The application of this method allows for bathing and comfortable sleep. A preliminary randomized trial of TCC vs iTCC in the management of plantar neuropathic foot ulcers has confirmed equivalent efficacy of the two devices and that iTCC is cheaper. and 61.4. The main disadvantage of TCC was the need for expertise in its application. An RCW is cast-like device that is easily removable to allow for selfinspection of the wound and application of topical therapies that require frequent administration[82. Also. RCW. As this device does not 11 . which is often contraindicative in cases of soft tissue or bone infections [36.5.offloading modalities. this method did not show equivalent healing time (mean healing time: 33. In addition. In some cases. quicker to apply. limitations on daily activities (e. respectively). in a study that compared the effectiveness of TCC. Furthermore. This technique forces the patient to adhere to advice to immobilize the foot while allowing for ease of application and examination of the ulcer as needed. and a significantly higher proportion of people with DFU were healed after 12 wk wearing a TCC compared with the two other widely used offloading modalities. and the potential of a rigid cast to injure the insensate neuropathic foot are considered other disadvantages. 50..83]. the expense of time and materials (the device should be replaced weekly). iTCC.g. which involves simply wrapping a RCW with a single layer of cohesive bandage. it is suggested to use other kinds of offloading techniques such as a removable cast walker (RCW) or Instant TCC (iTCC). because RCW is removable. TCC does not allow daily assessment of the foot or wound. Most centers do not have a physician or cast technician available with adequate training or experience to safely apply TCC. bathing). Elastoplast or casting tape (Figure 5). they can be used for infected wounds as well as for superficial ulcers .1 d. and halfshoe.32. is another offloading technique that is shown to be more effective than TCC  and RCW . improper cast application can cause skin irritation and in some cases even frank ulceration.
condition of wound margins.95]. high efficiency. Passive dressings are used as protective functions and for acute wounds because they absorb reasonable amounts of exudates and ensure good protection. and has the potential to replace TCC as the gold standard for offloading plantar neuropathic ulcers. it could revolutionize the future management of plantar neuropathic ulcers. Furthermore. they are normally used for chronic wounds because they adapt to wounds easily and maintain a moist environment that can stimulate the healing process[95. presence of infection and pain. or interactive . protease sequestration. antimicrobial activity. need for adhesiveness. The main categories of dressings used 12 . amount of scar or slough. Advanced dressing A major breakthrough for DFU management over the last decades was the demonstration of novel dressings[13.require a skilled technician to apply it. it should have a prolonged time of action. The choice of dressing is largely determined by the causes of DFU. Hence.96]. growth factor stimulation. patients should return to an unmodified shoe until complete healing of the ulcer has occurred. In addition. dressings should confer moisture balance. Wound dressing can be categorized as passive. and the capacity to promote autolytic debridement that facilitates the production of granulation tissues and the re-epithelialization process. diabetic plantar ulcers. depth. Ideally. and improved sustained drug release in the case of medicated therapies[95. In addition. exudates. Active and interactive dressings are capable of modifying the physiology of a wound by stimulating cellular activity and growth factors release. no single dressing fulfills all the requirements of a diabetic patient with a foot ulcer.98]. Regardless of the modality selected. neuropathic. active. oxygen permeability. wound location. any shoe that resulted in the formation of an ulcer should not be worn again . It has been suggested that iTCC will dramatically change the treatment of non-ischemic. and conformability of the dressing.
dressings are used based on DFU characteristics (Figure 8). all dressings are commonly used in clinical practice. Their results showed that all ulcers healed in 13 . greater absorbency. and in some cases amputation. hydrocolloids. Some studies dealing with the incorporation of these products show great potential in the treatment of DFU [100. Moreover. In general. In one study conducted by Mueller et al. while the efficacy of these products has been a challenge for researchers and clinicians. prophylactic. Nonvascular foot surgery is divided into elective. hydrogels have been found to be the most popular choice of dressing for all DFU types . Nevertheless. vascular foot surgery. surgery for DFU healing includes nonvascular foot surgery. Surgery Diabetic foot surgery plays an essential role in the prevention and management of DFU. they have longer wear times.for DFU are as follows: films. alginates. Today. and there are controversial results regarding their use [99. in certain patients. and has been on the increase over the past 2 decades[111. and silver-impregnated (Table 3).116]. foams. Although surgical interventions for patients with DFU are not without risk.115. However. curative.101]. and emergent surgeries that aim to correct deformities that increase plantar pressure  (Table 4). these findings do not represent a practical option since the application of these compounds is expensive and difficult to regulate [102-105].36]. hydrogels. However. may be less painful. subjects were randomized into two groups of Achilles TendonLengthening (ATL) group. who received treatment of ATL and TCC. a few studies have reported long-term outcomes for diabetic foot surgery in RCTs [60.112]. they are cost effective because of the lowered frequency of dressing changes and not requiring extensive nursing time . Today. the selective correction of persistent foot ulcers can improve outcomes. and a group who received TCC only. and are typically less traumatic when removed.
medical. usually in daily sessions. During each session. RCTs have reported beneficial effects from HBOT in numerous studies[130-134]. In general.48 (52%) vs 14 . This decision is individualized and multifactorial to match patient lifestyle. amputation is considered as an urgent or curative surgery and should be the last resort after all other salvage techniques have been explored. which are resistant to other therapeutic methods[124-127].0 absolute atmospheres during 3 periods of 30 min (overall 90 min) intercalated by 5 min intervals in a hyperbaric chamber [124.129] (Figure 9). A recent double-blind RCT conducted by Löndahl et al demonstrated a significantly improved outcome in the intervention group as the treated patients were more likely to heal within 12 mo ]25. no RCT has been shown to reduce DFU. HBOT involves intermittent administration of 100% oxygen. and creation of a functional foot or stump that can accommodate footwear or prosthesis. and the patient must be in agreement.the ATL group and the risk for ulcer recurrence was 75% less at seven months and 52% less at two years than for the TCC group . While the primary goal of DFU management focuses on limb salvage.4–3. and psychological comorbidities. Vascular foot surgery such as bypass grafts from femoral to pedal arteries and peripheral angioplasty to improve blood flow for an ischemic foot have been recently developed. Today. ADVANCED THERAPIES Hyperbaric oxygen therapy Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has shown promise in the treatment of serious cases of non-healing DFU. patients breathed pure oxygen at 1. Indications for an amputation include the removal of infected or gangrenous tissues. physical. While studies have shown that these procedures help to heal ischemic ulcers [118-120]. in some cases amputation may offer a better functional outcome. although this is often not clearly defined . control of infection.
no difference was found between HBOT group compared to standard wound care group.25–21. In addition. or surgical wound debridement. Some studies have reported that HBOT improved wound tissue hypoxia. and promoted fibroblast proliferation. enhanced perfusion. HBOT is available in only a minority of communities as it is expensive [a full course of treatment in the United States typically costs $50000 (Medicare) to $200000 (private pay)] and is time-consuming (an average of 60 total hours in the chamber)[5. there is a substantial body of work that supports the effectiveness of ES for DFU healing [141-144]. HBOT does not substitute for antibiotic therapy. significant differences in number of healed ulcers (65% in treatment group vs 35% in control group) were found 15 . reduced edema. in a systematic review.12. Despite reports of increased healing rates and decreased amputation rates with using HBOT. revealed that treatment with HBOT resulted in a significantly higher proportion of healed DFU when compared with treatment without HBO (relative risk. collagen production. 95%CI.02). Furthermore. In addition.20.6]. Kranke et al. no significant effects on amputation rates were found in the RCT evidence and in the high quality studies. 1. local humid therapy. The exact mechanism of HBOT remains poorly understood.03[. Currently. in another systematic review conducted by O'Reilly et al. Electrical stimulation Electrical stimulation (ES) has been reported as a perfect adjunctive therapy for DFU healing in recent literature. 5. P = 0. adjuvant use of this method in DFU remains a controversial issue. double-blind. However.66.42 (29%). and angiogenesis  . it was demonstrated that HBOT stimulated vasculogenic stem cell mobilization from bone marrow and recruited them to the skin wound. down regulated inflammatory cytokines. In a randomized. placebo-controlled trial study conducted by Peters et al on 40 patients with DFU. P = 0.
146]. Investigations have shown that when NPWT is initiated. and deficient cellular responses[141. such as poor blood flow. Most commonly. increases cellular proliferation.148] (Figure 10). The fluid suctioned from the wound is collected into a container in the control unit[147. This therapy is a safe. Negative pressure wound therapy Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a noninvasive wound closure system that uses controlled. it is suggested that ES could improve common deficiencies that have been associated with faulty wound healing in DFU. This method has been advocated by numerous RCTs as a safe and effective adjunctive modality in the treatment of DFU. and a simple intervention to improve wound healings in patients with DFU[145. and a potential trend towards reduced risk for a second amputation than for the control treatment[148. In addition. reduces bacterial colonization. Based on the literature review. Studies have shown that wound healing with this approach results in a higher proportion of healed wounds. localized negative pressure to help heal chronic and acute wounds. and improves wound oxygenation as the result of applied mechanical force[149-151]. faster time for wound closure. infection. a more rapid and robust granulation tissue response. It seems that NPWT removes edema and chronic exudate. 80–125 mmHg of negative pressure is used. 16 .at 12 wk.152-156]. This system uses latex-free and sterile polyurethane or polyvinyl alcohol foam dressing that is fitted at the bedside to the appropriate size for every wound. this method does not replace surgical wound debridement to improve blood circulation in all DFU patients. inexpensive.157. While the evidence for NPWT in DFU patients is promising. enhances formation of new blood vessels.158]. meta-analysis studies have indicated that NPWT significantly reduces healing times and increases the number of healed wounds[147. and then covered with an adhesive drape to create an airtight seal. either continuously or in cycles.145].
Currently. it seems that BES can provide the cellular substrate and molecular components necessary to accelerate wound healing and angiogenesis..there must be no significant infection or gangrene in the wound [147. RCTs have shown significantly higher mean material expenses for wounds treated with NPWT when compared to conventional therapy (moist gauze) in the management of full-thickness wounds requiring surgical closure [159. BES product cells are seeded into the scaffolds and cultured in vitro. 158].170] . In vitro incubation establishes the cells and allows the cell-secreted ECM and growth factors to accumulate in the scaffold. Therefore. Despite the advantages of BES. and. West Lafayette. Bioengineered skin Bio-engineered skin (BES) has been used during the last decades as a new therapeutic method to treat DFU [161-164].163. La Jolla. surgical revascularization and decompression as well as wound bed preparation are considered as essential prerequisites for BES applications. Canton. Also. Hence. and numerous RCT studies shown their efficacy in DFUs healing (Table 5). In addition. which is one of the pathological characteristics of DFU. IN) [164. Peripheral ischemia. is a critical contributing factor that affects BES transplantation.175]. three kinds of BES products approved in the United States are available to use for DFU including Derma graft (Advanced Bio healing Inc. the 17 . They act as biologic dressings and as delivery systems for growth factors and ECM components through the activity of live human fibroblasts contained in the dermal elements [162.165]. Mass).. more recently. The cells within live cell scaffolds are believed to accelerate DFU healing by actively secreting growth factors during the repair process[164. Oasis (Cook Biotech. they cannot be used in isolation to treat DFU.160]. In addition. CA). Apligraf (Organogenesis Inc.166]. this method needs control of the infection [77. This method replaces the degraded and destructive milieu of extra cellular matrix (ECM) with the introduction of a new ground substance matrix with cellular components to start a new healing trajectory.
IGF2). Becaplermin demonstrated a 43% increase in complete closure versus placebo gel (50% vs 35%). monocytes. insulin-like growth factors (IGF1. has demonstrated increased healing rates when compared with controls in a number of clinical trials [178-181] and has shown sufficient DFU repair efficacy to earn Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval . 18 . and transforming growth factor b. Growth factors DFU has demonstrated the benefits from growth factors (GFs) such as platelet derived growth factor (PDGF).185].above-mentioned points may result in high long-term costs and cause major concern for use of this treatment. GFs have been shown to stimulate chemotaxis and mitogenesis of neutrophils. vascular endothelial growth factor. which is a hydrogel that contains 0. and other components that form the cellular basis of wound healing [178. Among the aforementioned GFs. it would be biologically possible that topical administration of recombinant PDGF could promote cancer. only recombinant human PDGF (rhPDGF) (Becaplermin or Regranex).188]. fibroblast growth factor. In one randomized placebo controlled trial involving patients with full thickness DFU. epidermal growth factor.01% of PDGF-BB (rhPDGFBB). fibroblasts. In another randomized placebo-controlled trial. Some studies have indicated that endogenous PDGF stimulates tumor infiltrating fibroblasts found in human melanoma cells and is overexpressed at all stages of human astrocytoma growth. So. the clinical use of Becaplermin remains limited because of its high cost and uncertain patient-specific clinical benefits [187. Despite FDA approval and other reviewed studies. Sibbald et al demonstrated that patients with infection-free chronic foot ulcers treated with the best clinical care and once-daily applications of 100 μg/g Becaplermin gel had a significantly greater chance of 100% ulcer closure by 20 wk than those receiving the best clinical care plus placebo (vehicle gel) alone.
surgery. The main components of management that can ensure successful and rapid healing of DFU include education. and advanced therapies. blood sugar control. offloading. multidisciplinary approach to therapy is taken. advanced dressing.CONCLUSION Foot ulcers in patients with diabetes is common. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Diabetes Research Center of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. for their help in editing. These approaches should be used whenever feasible to reduce high morbidity and risk of serious complications resulting from foot ulcers. which are used clinically. 19 . and frequently leads to lower limb amputation unless a prompt. rational. wound debridement. Iran.
1016/j. Woo K. Botek G. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2012. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010. Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers.2009. Pascale R.1016/j. Shaw J. Zimmet PZ. Management.07. Rev Med Interne 2008. Schuldiner S. Diabetic foot ulcers: Part II.029] 5 Aalaa M. Snehalatha C. Trends in prevalence of diabetes in Asian countries. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Pak J Med Sci 2013.i6. World J Diabetes 2012. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030.diabres.e1-2124 [PMID: 24355276 DOI: 10.10.4239/wjd. Sicree RA. 94: 311-321 [PMID: 22079683 DOI: 10. Armstrong DG.10. Malazy OT. a review. Botros M. Lancet 2005. Boeni T. [Epidemiology of diabetic foot]. Latifi SM.3473] 2 Ramachandran A. Nurses' role in diabetic foot prevention and care.1016/S0140-6736(05)67699-4] 8 Leone S.e1-2124. Weil C. Infez Med 2012. 20 Suppl 1: 8-13 [PMID: 22982692] 9 Richard JL. Shetty AS. Nanditha A.1016/j. quiz 21.293.007] 4 Whiting DR. 366: 1725-1735 [PMID: 16291067 DOI: 10.110] 3 Shaw JE. Risk assessment of patients with diabetes for foot ulcers according to risk classification consensus of International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF).jaad. Mohajeri-Tehrani M. Esposito S.2011. Yazdanpanah L. 87: 4-14 [PMID: 19896746 DOI: 10. Lipsky BA. 70: 21. 29: 730-734 [PMID: 24353617 DOI: 10.048] 7 Cavanagh PR.1186/2251-6581-11-24] 6 Alavi A.2013. 11: 24 [PMID: 23497582 DOI: 10. Bradbury AW. 29 Suppl 2: S222-S230 10.1016/S0248-8663(08)73949-3] 20 [PMID: 18822247 DOI: . Sanjari M. Guariguata L.12669/pjms.diabres. Vitale M. Mayer D.v3. Kirsner RS. [Epidemiology of diabetic foot problems]. Peimani M. Goodman L. Ayello EA.REFERENCES 1 Shahbazian H. 3: 110117 [PMID: 22737281 DOI: 10. Sibbald RG. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014.
J Med J 2012. 4: 373-376 [PMID: 23626896] 13 Fard AS.04. Driver VR. Khorvash F. Diabetic foot ulcers: a quality of life issue.1016/S1067-2516(07)60001-5]q 19 Bortoletto MS. costs. Assessment and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. Apelqvist J. Hanft JR. Askari G. Int J Prev Med 2013.2007. Lancet 2005. 366: 1719-1724 [PMID: 16291066 DOI: 10. Wukich DK.jdiacomp. 55: 28-38 [PMID: 19934461] 15 Vileikyte L. Khader YS. 17: 246-249 [PMID: 11544609 DOI: 10. Silva AM. Landsman AS.1016/j. Diabetic foot disorders.08. Diabetic foot ulcers--effects on QOL. Larijani B. Esmaelzadeh M. and mortality and the role of standard wound care and advanced-care therapies. Andersen C. 22: 77-82 [PMID: 18280436 DOI: 10. A clinical practice guideline (2006 revision). Schuberth JM. Neo S. Matsuo T. Vileikyte L. J Diabetes Complications 2008.004] 11 Bakri FG. Giurini JM. Ajlouni KM. Bee CS. González AD. Moore JC. Health-economic consequences of diabetic foot lesions. 45: S1-66 [PMID: 17280936 DOI: 10.2007.10 Nather A. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009.216] 16 Ragnarson Tennvall G.1086/383275] 17 Boulton AJ.011] 18 Frykberg RG. Risk factors for foot ulcers--a cross sectional survey from a 21 . Chew JL.1111/j. Lin CB. Ebneshahidi A.01534. 46: 118-125 12 Iraj B.1742-1241. Kravitz SR. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2001. Sim EY. Int J Clin Pract 2007. The global burden of diabetic foot disease. 61: 1931-1938 [PMID: 17935551 DOI: 10. Lavery LA. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006. Ragnarson-Tennvall G.1016/j. Younes NA. Clin Infect Dis 2004. Apelqvist J. Vanore JV.x] 14 Snyder RJ. Allan AH. 39 Suppl 2: S132-S139 [PMID: 15306992 DOI: 10. Armstrong DG. Prevention of diabetic foot ulcer.2010. de Andrade SM. Prevalence of Diabetic Foot Ulcer and its Associated Risk Factors among Diabetic Patients in Jordan.mpmed. Zgonis T.1002/dmrr. Haddad Mdo C. Huak CY. Epidemiology of diabetic foot problems and predictive factors for limb loss.
20 Waaijman R, de Haart M, Arts ML, Wever D, Verlouw AJ, Nollet F, Bus SA.
21 Monteiro-Soares M, Boyko EJ, Ribeiro J, Ribeiro I, Dinis-Ribeiro M.
26 Sawacha Z, Gabriella G, Cristoferi G, Guiotto A, Avogaro A, Cobelli C.
27 Ledoux WR, Shofer JB, Cowley MS, Ahroni JH, Cohen V, Boyko EJ.
Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients. New ulceration.28.1002/edn. Morabito A. 64: 769-778 [PMID: 6433493] 51 Pomposelli JJ.43 Mensing C. 158: 520523. Tanja J.78] 49 Bowering CK. National standards for diabetes self-management education.5-year follow-up. Bistrian BR. Lasichak A.1002/14651858. Am J Surg 1989. Favales F.1.S72] 44 Malone JM. Snyder M. Diabetic foot ulcers.suppl_1. 24: 78-83 [PMID: 11194246 DOI: 10. Babineau TJ.189] 46 Dorresteijn JA. Yauk L. 29 Suppl 1: S4-42 [PMID: 16373931] 48 Faglia E. Diabetes Care 2005. new major amputation. Pomfret EA. Surg Clin North Am 1984. Kriegsman DM. Can Fam Physician 2001. Bernhard VM. and survival rates in diabetic subjects hospitalized for foot ulceration from 1990 to 1993: a 6. Lamb B. Prevention of amputation by diabetic education. Pathophysiology.CD001488] 47 American Diabetes Association. Alm-Roijer C. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Mulcahy K. Kopher W. Cypress M. Bunt TJ. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1998. Adams C.24. 22: 7781 [PMID: 9527963 DOI: 10. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2006. assessment. Diabetes Care 2001.1177/014860719802200277] 25 . Weinger K. EDN 2011. discussion 523-524 [PMID: 2589581] 45 Annersten Gershater M. Diabetes Care 2006. Boucher J.2337/diacare. Forse RA. 28 Suppl 1: S72-S79 [PMID: 15618119 DOI: 10. Patient education for the prevention of diabetic foot ulcers: Interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial due to morbidity and mortality of participants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012. Wound healing with diabetes mellitus. Hosey G. Valk GD. Apelqvist J. Barta P. Norman J. Better glucose control for better wound healing in diabetes. Holloway GA. Baxter JK. Anderson G. Wisdom K. Assendelft WJ. 8: 102-107 [DOI: 10. E Pilhammar E. Driscoll DF. and therapy.2337/diacare. 10: CD001488 [PMID: 23076893 DOI: 10. Mangan M. 47: 1007-1016 [PMID: 11398715] 50 McMurry JF.
J Am Coll Surg 1996.1016/S00029610(03)00299-X] 57 Enoch S. Navalesi R. Clin Ther 2013. Medicine Science 2014. 15: 412-417 [PMID: 9609364] 26 .09. Sheehan P. Tomic-Canic M. Wunderlich RP. Slade HB.x] 55 Edwards J.1002/14651858. 18: 433-438 [PMID: 20840517 DOI: 10. Lancet 1998. Romanelli M. Wound bed preparation: the science behind the removal of barrier to healing. 15: 213-229 58 Jain AC.clinthera. Motley TA. 183: 61-64 [PMID: 8673309] 60 Piaggesi A. The role of surgical debridement in healing of diabetic foot ulcers. 352: 854-865 [PMID: 9742977 DOI: 10. Schipani E.1111/j. Clinical and economic assessment of diabetic foot ulcer debridement with collagenase: results of a randomized controlled study. Stapley S. Conservative surgical approach versus non-surgical management for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: a randomized trial.1016/S0140-6736(98)07037-8] 53 Tallis A.013] 54 Lebrun E. Diabet Med 1998.2013.2010.00619.CD003556] 56 Brem H. Kirsner RS. Webster MW.5455/medscience. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Donohoe D.8093] 59 Steed DL. (1): CD003556 [PMID: 20091547 DOI: 10.52 Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lindsley L.2013. Protocol for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds 2003.1016/j. Harding K. 35: 1805-1820 [PMID: 24145042 DOI: 10.1524-475X. Am J Surg 2004. Diabetic Ulcer Study Group. Boulton AJ. Baccetti F. Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers. 3: 991-1001 [DOI: 10. Dickerson JE. Arvia C. Campi F. Waycaster C. 187: 1S-10S [PMID: 15147985 DOI: 10. Effect of extensive debridement and treatment on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 2010. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010.02. A New Classification (Grading System) of Debridement in Diabetic Lower Limbs-an Improvization and Standardization in Practice of Diabetic Lower Limb Salvage around the World.
Carter MJ. Stewart DG. Bulan E.2013. Phillips T.1016/S01406736(05)67700-8] 65 Warriner RA. Maggot therapy takes us back to the future of wound care: new and improved maggot therapy for the 21st century. More frequent visits to wound care clinics result in faster times to close diabetic foot and venous leg ulcers. Driver V. 149: cohort study 1050-1058 of [PMID: 312 744 wounds. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009. Falanga V. Lancet 2005. Wilcox JR. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2000.03053. The key to successful wound healing and reconstruction. Knowles EA. Boulton AJ. 3: 336-344 [PMID: 20144365] 68 Armstrong DG.2002.10603. Adv Skin Wound Care 2012.1097/01.1046/j. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2002. JAMA 23884238 DOI: 10.0000422629. 17: 306-311 [PMID: 19660037 DOI: 10. Armstrong DG. Surgical débridement. Frequency of debridements and time to heal: a retrospective Dermatol 2013. Blume PA.ASW. Mossel J. Carter MJ. Clinical applications for maggots in wound care. Maggot debridement therapy: a primer.00485.1001/jamadermatol. Attinger C.61 Saap LJ. 2: 219-227 [PMID: 11705249] 27 . Harding K.1524- 475X. Debridement performance index and its correlation with complete Regen 2002. 17: 599-630 [PMID: 11070797] 64 Falanga V. Covington S. Short B. 25: 494-501 [PMID: 23080236 DOI: 10. Nixon BP. Wound healing and its impairment in the diabetic foot. Am J Clin Dermatol 2001. 92: 398-401 [PMID: 12122127] 69 Mumcuoglu KY. Serial surgical debridement: a retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds.x] 63 Attinger CE. Wound Repair Regen 2009. Zelen C.06] 66 Wilcox JR.2009. Wound DOI: Repair 10.4960] 67 Sherman RA. 366: 1736-1743 [PMID: 16291068 DOI: 10. Eisenbud DE.1524- 475X.x] 62 Cardinal M. 10: closure of 354-359 diabetic [PMID: foot 12453138 ulcers.1111/j.
Osman Z.1046/j.62884. 6: 3946 [PMID: 19291114 DOI: 10. Harding K. Bhandari PS. Ayello EA. Martin BR.mjafi. Dowsett C.s2. Sibbald RG.1524475X. Enzymatic wound debridement.11. Gray M. Vanscheidt W. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Loehne HB. 26: 446-451 [PMID: 12547878 DOI: 10.2008.WON. Boulton AJ. Diabetes Care 2003. Salas P.51] 73 Armstrong DG.00564. Teot L. Rajagopalan S. 5 questions--and answers--about pulsed lavage.446] 72 van Veen LJ. Maggot debridement therapy with Lucilia cuprina: a comparison with conventional debridement in diabetic foot ulcers. Falanga V. Ahmad NW.21854. Adv Skin Wound Care 2000. Mukherjee MK. Ariff AM. 13: 133-134 [PMID: 11075009] 76 Schultz GS.1111/j. 1: 135-142 [PMID: 15871964 for diabetic DOI: 10. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2008. Stacey MC. Maggot debridement therapy: a case study.2337/diacare. 11 Suppl 1: S1-28 [PMID: 12654015 DOI: 10. Saranum M. Short B.26.1016/j.x] 77 Ramundo J.70 Sherman RA.1177/1534734602001002009] 71 Sherman RA.WON. Enzymatic debridement of large burn wounds with papain-urea: Is it safe? Med J Armed Forces India 2013. Romanelli M. 95: 254-257 [PMID: 15901812] 74 Paul AG. Lee HL.1097/01. 35: 432-436 [PMID: 18635997 DOI: 10.0000326667. Maggot therapy for foot and leg wounds. Kimbriel HR.78] 78 Langer V. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2008. Nixon BP. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2002.0000319125. 69: 144-150 10.2. Wound Repair Regen 2003. Maggot therapy treating foot ulcers unresponsive to conventional therapy. 35: 273-280 [PMID: 18496083 DOI: 10.1097/01. Int Wound J 2009.2012. Naicker AS. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2005.001] 28 [PMID: 24600088 DOI: .1.09.x] 75 Scott RG. Maggot therapy in "lower-extremity hospice" wound care: fewer amputations and more antibiotic-free days.1742-481X.
Am J Surg 2004. 14: 42–55 80 Bowling FL.1055/s-2005-861398] 86 Rathur HM. Total contact casting in treatment of diabetic plantar ulcers. Baccetti F. Bus SA.015] 87 Mueller MJ. Boszek G. Clin Dermatol 2007. Larval therapy: a novel treatment in eliminating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 1989.jvs. Boulton AJ.24. 30: 370-371 [PMID: 17259512 DOI: 10. Diabetes Care 2007. 12: 384-388 [PMID: 2659299] 88 Piaggesi A.79 Jarczyk G.1086/383269] 83 Cavanagh PR. Salgami EV. Boulton AJ. 25: 109120 [PMID: 17276208 DOI: 10. Boulton AJ. Harkless LB.2010. Use of Lucilia sericata blowfly maggots in the treatment of diabetic feet threatened with amputation. 52: 37S-43S [PMID: 20804932 DOI: 10. Diamond JE. 24: 1019-1022 [PMID: 11375363 DOI: 10. Naccarato G. Romanelli M. Lavery LA. Zampa V. Nguyen HC. Rose SJ. Off-loading the diabetic foot wound: a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg 2010. Lavery LA. 37 Suppl 1: 61-68 [PMID: 15918113 DOI: 10. Nixon BP. Off-loading the diabetic foot for ulcer prevention and healing. Szpila K. Boulton AJ. 39 Suppl 2: S92-S99 [PMID: 15306986 DOI: 10.clindermatol. Sinacore DR.007] 84 Boulton AJ.6. 187: 17S-24S [PMID: 15147987 DOI: 10. The diabetic foot.2337/diacare. Clin Infect Dis 2004.1016/S0002-9610(03)00297-6] 85 Rathur HM.1016/j.1019] 82 Armstrong DG. Viacava P. Pressure and the diabetic foot: clinical science and offloading techniques.1016/j. Drury DA. Kapelaty S. Diabetes Care 2001. Blair VP. Semiquantitative analysis of the histopathological 29 .09. Jackowski M. Del Prato S.2337/dc06-2348] 81 Armstrong DG. but what you take off: techniques for debriding and off-loading the diabetic foot wound.2006. Acta Angiologica 2008. Boulton AJ. Pathogenesis of foot ulcers and the need for offloading. Controlled clinical trial. It's not what you put on. Horm Metab Res 2005.06. Rizzo L. van Schie CH. Delitto A.
2. Urbancic V.1001/jama.2337/diacare. Boulton AJ.ASW. Van Acker K. Apelqvist J.551] 94 Singh N. Wu S. Dias AM. Eckert KA. JAMA 2005.3123] 89 Prompers L.2337/diacare. A randomized trial of two irremovable offloading devices in the management of plantar neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. de Sousa HC. Spraul M. Carter MJ. Evaluation of removable and irremovable cast walkers in the healing of diabetic foot wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2005. 26: 3123-3128 [PMID: 14578249 DOI: 10.0000450831. Mizel MS. Diabetic foot ulcer off-loading: The gap between evidence and practice.x. Data from the US Wound Registry. Thomson B. Carvalho E. Reike H. Jirkovska A. Diabet Med 2008.217] 95 Moura LI. Delivery of care to diabetic patients with foot ulcers in daily practice: results of the Eurodiale Study. Lipsky BA. Bowker JH. Prieto-Sanchez L.28.293.02445.26.2008. Edmonds M. Weber AK. Schaper N. a prospective cohort study. 25: 700-707 [PMID: 18544108 DOI: 10.28.89] 92 Katz IA.features of the neuropathic foot ulcer: effects of pressure relief. Boulton AJ. Diabetes Care 2003. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. 28: 555-559 [PMID: 15735187 DOI: 10. Bakker K. 293: 217-228 [PMID: 15644549 DOI: 10. Armstrong DG. 28: 551-554 [PMID: 15735186 DOI: 10. Recent advances on the development of wound dressings for diabetic foot ulcer treatment--a 30 . Diabetes Care 2005. Van Baal J. Lavery LA. Jude E.1097/01.2337/dc08-0771] 91 Fife CE. 27: 310-316 [PMID: 24932951 DOI: 10. Tennvall GR. 31: 2118-2119 [PMID: 18694976 DOI: 10. Armstrong DG.555] 93 Armstrong DG. Holstein P.1111/j.] 90 Wu SC.3.65667.11. Uccioli L. Piaggesi A. Van Merode F.2337/diacare. Jensen JL. Miranda-Palma B. Walker D. Armstrong DG. Use of pressure offloading devices in diabetic foot ulcers: do we practice what we preach? Diabetes Care 2008. Mauricio D.1464-5491. Robinson DE. Huijberts M.3. Adv Skin Wound Care 2014. Harlan A.
x] 100 Veves A.00137. Hutchinson A.1001/archsurg. O'Meara S. O'Meara S.1464-5491. Speak K. Drugs Aging 1997.1016/j. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011. controlled trial of Promogran (a collagen/oxidized regenerated cellulose dressing) vs standard treatment in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. Deshpande S. Booth A. A practical guide to their use in older patients.review. Speak K. Speak K. Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.137. Emerging treatments in diabetic wound care. Diabet 10. Veves A. Pham H. Deshpande S. Beuker B. Arch Surg 2002.03. Martini J. Spraul M. Williams DT.1999. 24: in non-ischaemic 280-288 [PMID: diabetic 17305788 foot DOI: ulcers. Wound dressings in diabetic foot disease. 8: CD009099 [PMID: 23922167 DOI: 10. Clin Infect Dis 2004. Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.2007.1464- 5491. 9: 7093-7114 [PMID: 23542233 DOI: 10. Young R.033] 96 Hilton JR. Cochrane CD009110 [PMID: 22336860] 31 Database Syst Rev 2012.1111/j. McIntosh A.1002/14651858.02079.CD009111] 104 Dumville JC.x] 102 Dumville JC. 39 Suppl 2: S100S103 [PMID: 15306987 DOI: 10.7. Miller DR. Pham HT. Harding KG.actbio. O'Keeffe C. Wounds 2002. Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.2013. Interactive wound dressings. II: treatment. 2: . 14: 2-10 99 Mason J. Sheehan P. Diabet Med 1999.1086/383270] 97 Hansson C. Apelqvist J. Acta Biomater 2013. 137: 822-827 [PMID: 12093340 DOI: 10.1002/14651858] 103 Dumville JC. A randomized. (9): CD009111 [PMID: 21901731 DOI: 10. Deshpande S.822] 101 Jude EB. A systematic review of foot ulcer in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013. 16: 889-909 [PMID: 10588519 DOI: 10. Prospective randomized controlled study of Hydrofiber dressing containing ionic silver or calcium alginate dressings Med 2007.1046/j. O'Meara S. 11: 271-284 [PMID: 9342557] 98 Dinh T.
45: 22-4. van Houtum WH.2009. Ostomy Wound Manage 1999. Löndahl M. Jeffcoate WJ. A comparison of an opaque foam dressing versus a transparent film dressing in the management of skin tears in institutionalized subjects. Paragas LK. Tingley-Kelley K. Chang CJ. Single-stage surgical treatment of noninfected diabetic foot ulcers.x] 107 Thomas DR.1016/j.105 Bergin SM. Apelqvist J. Valk GD. 109: 601-609 [PMID: 11818842] 112 Armstrong DG. Warriner RA. Attinger CE. 3: 241-248 [PMID: 20610846 DOI: 10. Tennyson T. Foot Ankle Spec 2010.825] 32 .1002/dmrr. The effectiveness of silver-releasing dressings in the management of non-healing chronic wounds: a meta-analysis. 99: 57 [PMID: 12861644] 109 Carter MJ.jaad. Is prophylactic diabetic foot surgery dangerous? J Foot Ankle Surg 1996.1365-2702. Hayter M. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006. Silver treatments and silverimpregnated dressings for the healing of leg wounds and ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soft tissue reconstruction pyramid in the diabetic foot. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002. Stern S. Bakker K. Harkless LB. Game FL. Zgonis T. Using film dressings. Chang YT.09.1177/1938640010375113] 111 Blume PA. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010. Hartemann-Heurtier A. Lavery LA. Price PE. 24 Suppl 1: S119-S144 [PMID: 18442185 DOI: 10. Wraight P. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Nurs Times 2003. Sumpio BE. (1): CD005082 [PMID: 16437516] 106 Lo SF. Stapleton JJ. J Clin Nurs 2009. LaMaster K. Parnell LK. Goode PS.02534. Hu WY. 27-8 [PMID: 10655859] 108 Fletcher J. Armstrong DG.007] 110 Capobianco CM. 63: 668679 [PMID: 20471135 DOI: 10. 35: 585-589 [PMID: 8986899] 113 Hinchliffe RJ. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008.2008. Silver based wound dressings and topical agents for treating diabetic foot ulcers.1111/j. 18: 716-728 [PMID: 19239539 DOI: 10.
Morabito A. Kravitz S. Tukiainen E.2002.2003. Lee T.114 Armstrong DG. Johnson JE. Settembrini PG. Biancari F. Kravette M. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012. Amputation and ambulation in diabetic patients: function is the goal.x] 115 Mueller MJ. Diabetic foot disorders: a clinical 33 . Hastings MK.1086/383273] 121 Attinger CE. Frykberg RG. Clin Infect Dis 2004. in the treatment of ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers: clinical results of a multicentric study of 221 consecutive diabetic subjects. A randomized clinical trial.00933. Mantero M. Caminiti M.2236] 122 Frykberg RG. Blume PA. 252: 225-232 [PMID: 12270002 DOI: 10. De Giglio R. Lee TH.1046/j. Stuck R. Strube MJ. Ross C. Classifying diabetic foot surgery: toward a rational definition. 20: 689-708 [PMID: 14636033 DOI: 10. 16 Suppl 1: S27-S32 [PMID: 11054884 DOI: 10. Brown BJ. 85-A: 1436-1445 [PMID: 12925622] 116 Lin SS. Giurini J.1002/1520-7560(200009/10)16: 1] 118 Sumpio BE. Vascular evaluation and arterial reconstruction of the diabetic foot.01015. Orthopedics 1996. Effect of Achilles tendon lengthening on neuropathic plantar ulcers. Pritelli C. Edwards A.1464-5491. Never amputate without consultation of a vascular surgeon. De Cata P. Wapner KL.x] 120 van Baal JG. 28 Suppl 1: 93-96 [PMID: 22271731 DOI: 10. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003. Armstrong DG. Clerici G. Vanore J. Extensive use of peripheral angioplasty.1016/S0891-8422(03)00088-0] 119 Faglia E. J Intern Med 2002. Fratino P.1365-2796. 39 Suppl 2: S123-S128 [PMID: 15306990 DOI: 10. Diabet Med 2003. Dalla Paola L. 19: 465-475 [PMID: 8727341] 117 Lepäntalo M. Caravaggi C.1002/dmrr. Mariani G. Plantar forefoot ulceration with equinus deformity of the ankle in diabetic patients: the effect of tendo-Achilles lengthening and total contact casting. particularly infrapopliteal. Surgical treatment of the infected diabetic foot. 20: 329-331 [PMID: 12675649 DOI: 10. Sciangula L. Poli M. Stavosky J.1046/j. Sinacore DR. Graziani L.
The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat chronic wounds: A review. Ann Vasc Surg 2007.fas.1111/j. Molkara A.x] 127 Landau Z. controlled study of hyperbaric oxygen therapy: effects on healing and 34 .006] 124 Oliveira N. American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 20: 140-143 [PMID: 24796835 DOI: 10. Chen X. 12: 2-10 [PMID: 14974958 DOI: 10. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003. Clin Infect Dis 2006. 25: 513-518 [PMID: 12787692 DOI: 10.2004. Point: hyperbaric oxygen is beneficial for diabetic foot wounds.2006. Long RJ. Du J. Wilkinson AR. McElwain DL. randomized.1911] 131 Ma L. Hou T. Borges L.1524-475X. Laden G. Killeen JD. Gomez NR. Dias E. McCollum PT.004] 125 Strauss MB. Bianchi C. The role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in ischaemic diabetic lower extremity ulcers: a double-blind randomisedcontrolled trial. Advances in the treatment of the diabetic foot: Is there a role for adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy? Wound Repair Regen 2004. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1998. J Foot Ankle Surg 2000.012104. A prospective analysis of critical limb ischemia: factors leading to major primary amputation versus revascularization. 16: 321-330 [PMID: 18471250 DOI: 10. Shi Z.2014.1067-1927.2008. Kuhan G. A prospective. Teruya TH. 21: 458-463 [PMID: 17499967 DOI: 10.02.2002.1111/j. Topical hyperbaric oxygen and low energy laser for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Banta JE. Johnson BF.avsg. 26: 15-18 [PMID: 15680113] 126 Cianci P.x] 130 Abidia A.1016/j.00372. Renwick PM.1016/j.1053/ejvs. 117: 156158 [PMID: 9521521] 128 Barnes RC. 39: S1-60 [PMID: 11280471] 123 Abou-Zamzam AM.12. 43: 188-192 [PMID: 16779745] 129 Thackham JA. Oliveira F. Hyperbaric oxygen as an intervention for managing wound hypoxia: its role and usefulness in diabetic foot wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2008. Rosa P. Foot Ankle Surg 2014. Treatment of diabetic foot complications with hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a retrospective experience. Li P. Foot Ankle Int 2005. Masson EA. Cássio I.practice guideline.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds. QJM 2004. Ostomy Wound Manage 2013. Stephan D. Bowen JM.1002/dmrr. Pinget M. Pasricha A. Schneider F. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012. 97: 385-395 [PMID: 15208426 DOI: 10.oxidative stress of ulcer tissue in patients with a diabetic foot ulcer. 28 Suppl 1: 78-84 [PMID: 22271728 DOI: 10. Bennett MH. Tarride JE.1017/S0266462313000263] 137 Gill AL. Bilbault P. ScientificWorldJournal 2006. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012. Diabetes Care 2003. 29: and meta-analysis. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic ulcers: systematic review Care 2013. Ortéga F. 4: CD004123 [PMID: 22513920 DOI: 10. Goeree R. Assasi N. 6: 425-441 [PMID: 16604253] 35 of . Debus SE.2378] 133 Löndahl M.1093/qjmed/hch074] 138 Al-Waili NS.2337/diacare. Diabetes healing of chronic Care 2010.8. mechanisms of action and outcomes. Passemard R.CD004123.2337/dc09-1754] 134 Löndahl M. Hyperbaric oxygen: its uses. 33: foot ulcers 998-1003 in [PMID: patients with 20427683 DOI: 10. Katzman P.pub3] 136 O'Reilly D. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy as treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Nilsson A. Martyn-St James M. 59: 18-24 [PMID: 23475448] 132 Kessler L. Bell CN.26. Hyperbaric oxygenation accelerates the healing rate of nonischemic chronic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomized study. Butler GJ. 26: 2378-2382 [PMID: 12882865 DOI: 10.1002/14651858. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy facilitates diabetes.2256] 135 Kranke P. Grasso C. Hammarlund C. Schnabel A. Int 269-281 J Technol [PMID: Assess Health 23863187 DOI: 10. Effects of hyperbaric oxygen on inflammatory response to wound and trauma: possible mechanism action. Burke N. Campbell K.
Effects of electrical stimulation on wound healing in patients with diabetic ulcers. 127 Suppl 1: 131S-141S [PMID: 21200283 DOI: 10.1111/j. Kuukasjärvi P.23780] 142 Petrofsky JS.0b013e3181fbe2bf] 140 Niinikoski JH.17530407. Electrical nerve stimulation improves healing of diabetic ulcers. Fleischli JG.2008. Lavery LA. Hyperbaric oxygen: its mechanisms and efficacy. 28: 307-311 [PMID: 14961187] 141 Peters EJ. Najafi B. Lawson D.22081] 146 Barnes R. Juutilainen V.3. Chambers R. Enhanced healing of diabetic foot ulcers using local heat and electrical stimulation for 30 min three times per week. Villar F.1016/j. Electrical stimulation vs. 2: 41-46 [PMID: 20923474 DOI: 10. Electric stimulation as an adjunct to heal diabetic foot ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Diabet Foot Ankle 2013. 44: 429-440 [PMID: 24456185 DOI: 10. Eur J Clin Invest 2014.1097/PRS.3402/dfa. J Diabetes 2010. Berk L. standard care for chronic ulcer healing: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials. Gohil R. DeMuth SK. Ann Plast Surg 1992. wound perfusion.00058. Kim P. Lavery LA.405] 145 Thakral G. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008.v4i0. and transcutaneous oximetry. 20: 405-412 [PMID: 9051395 DOI: 10.x] 143 Lundeberg TC. Eriksson SV.1053/apmr.2337/diacare. Talal TK. Malm M. Lafontaine J. World J Surg 2004. 4 [PMID: 24049559 DOI: 10.139 Thom SR. 36: 438-448 [PMID: 18675559] 36 . Malmivaara A. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001.010] 147 Vikatmaa P. Chetter I. Suh H. Diabetes Care 1997.ejvs.2001.06. 82: 721-725 [PMID: 11387573 DOI: 10. 29: 328-331 [PMID: 1466529] 144 Baker LL. Electrical stimulation to accelerate wound healing.2009. Negative pressure wound therapy: a systematic review on effectiveness and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011.20. Armstrong DG. Clinical hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Shahin Y.
Marks MW. Nixon BP. Armstrong DG. Ostomy Wound Manage 2000. Mechanisms and clinical applications of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) Device: a review. Mesbahi AN. 46: 28-32. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter 37 . 17: 645-649 [PMID: 14534844] 153 Eto¨z A.1016/S01406736(05)67695-7] 149 DeFranzo AJ. 16: 264-269 154 McCallon SK. Argenta LC. O¨ zcan M. Towne JB. 92: 395-397 [PMID: 12122126] 151 Venturi ML. Hess CL. randomised controlled trial. Attinger CE. Brown KR. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001. 6: 185-194 [PMID: 15943495] 152 Eginton MT. Lantis J. Use of subatmospheric (VAC) therapy to improve bioengineered tissue grafting in diabetic foot wounds. Cambria RA.1016/j. A prospective randomized evaluation of negative-pressure wound dressings for diabetic foot wounds. Knight CA. Cunningham MW. Lancet 2005. McCulloch JM. Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Seabrook GR. Teasdall RG. The use of negative pressure wound therapy on diabetic foot ulcers: a preliminary controlled trial. Webb LX. 108: 1184-1191 [PMID: 11604617 DOI: 10. Molnar JA. Ayala J.03. Farinas LP. Lavery LA. Ward WG. Graw KS. Ann Vasc Surg 2003. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2002. 366: 1704-1710 [PMID: 16291063 DOI: 10. David LR. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre. 34 [PMID: 11189545] 155 Blume PA. Payne W. Valiulus JP.011] 150 Espensen EH.148 Armstrong DG. Walters J.cpm. Am J Clin Dermatol 2005. Lavery LA. Wounds 2004.2007. O¨zgenel Y. The use of vacuum-assisted closure therapy for the treatment of lower-extremity wounds with exposed bone.
44: 631-636 [PMID: 17943674 DOI: 10.randomized controlled trial. Klinkenbijl JH. Ma B. Diabetes Care 2008. van Griethuysen AJ. Zhang YC. Efficacy of TNP on lower limb wounds: a meta-analysis. Current status in wound healing. Hayes PD. Noorani A. An economic evaluation of the use of TNP on full-thickness wounds. Yan X. Ghiasi F. Heilala M. Eaglstein WH. Falabella AF. J Wound Care 2008.1682/JRRD.2007.x] 163 Bello YM.01164. Li YP. Effects of vacuumcompression therapy on healing of diabetic foot ulcers: randomized controlled trial. Yang KH. 31: 631-636 [PMID: 18162494 DOI: 10. Bioengineered skin in diabetic foot ulcers. van den Bemd GJ. 24: 529-46. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007. A systematic review of topical negative pressure therapy for acute and chronic wounds.6238] 159 Mouës CM. Tissue-engineered skin. 17: 45-48 [PMID: 18210955] 158 Ubbink DT.2337/dc07-2196] 156 Akbari A. Moodi H. Westerbos SJ. Obdeijn MC.1463- 1326. Sagheb HM. Rashidi H. Nelson EA. Chang G. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006. Steinberg JS. Wang JM.1002/bjs. Weinraub GM. Tian JH. Vermeulen H. 2: 305-313 [PMID: 11721649] 38 . Walsh SR. discussion 398-400 [PMID: 16874208] 161 Kim PJ.2009. Bioengineered alternative tissues and hyperbaric oxygen in lower extremity wound healing.01. Feitz R. Am J Clin Dermatol 2001. 118: 390397. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2007. Hovius SE. x [PMID: 17613390] 162 Teng YJ. Diabetes Obes Metab 2010. van Rooij IA. 14: 224-227 [PMID: 15909439] 160 Braakenburg A. Varty K. Wang JW. Br J Surg 2008. Wang YJ. 95: 685-692 [PMID: 18446777 DOI: 10. The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuumassisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. J Wound Care 2005. Meerding WJ.1111/j.0002] 157 Sadat U. 12: 307-315 [PMID: 20380651 DOI: 10.
8: 11-18 [PMID: 19189997 DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.1177/1534734610371600] 168 Veves A. Pollak R. Hanft J. Dinneen SF. King WN. Norwood P.164] 167 O'Loughlin A. Hurley DP.12.1999.2. 20: 137-142 [PMID: 24485902 DOI: 10.2013. Doran MR. 24: randomized 290-295 multicenter [PMID: clinical 11213881 DOI: 10.00201.290] 169 Falanga V.1016/j. Falanga V. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010. Arch Dermatol 2010.2010. Sabolinski ML.014] 165 Futrega K.2013. Treating the whole not the hole: necessary coupling of technologies for diabetic foot ulcer treatment. Stasik L.1046/j.molmed.24.164 Richmond NA. Michela M. The efficacy and safety of Dermagraft in improving the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results 39 .1177/1534734609331597] 171 Steinberg JS. King M. A bilayered living skin construct (APLIGRAF) accelerates complete closure of hard-to-heal venous ulcers. Armstrong DG. Review paper: basic concepts to novel therapies: a review of the diabetic foot. Freeman K. Warriner R. is effective in the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot trial.2337/diacare. Topical and biologic therapies for diabetic foot ulcers. Sabolinski M. Med Clin North Am 2013. a human skin equivalent. 7: 201-207 [PMID: 10781211 DOI: 10. 9: 90-102 [PMID: 20483808 DOI: 10.1016/j. Lott WB. 97: 883-898 [PMID: 23992899 DOI: 10. Vivas AC. 100: 73-77 [PMID: 20093548] 172 Marston WA.mcna. Graftskin. Advanced biological therapies for diabetic foot ulcers. Confirmatory data from EU study supports Apligraf for the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 1999.03. O'Brien T.004] 166 Kirsner RS.x] 170 Edmonds M. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2010. Edmonds M.1524- 475X. Apligraf in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Kirsner RS. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2009. Diabetes ulcers: a prospective Care 2001. 146: 857862 [PMID: 20713816 DOI: 10. Trends Mol Med 2014. McIntosh C.
Adv Skin Wound Care 2005. Veves A. Maltezos E. Randomized clinical trial comparing OASIS Wound Matrix to Regranex Gel for diabetic ulcers.1097/00000658- .26. The efficacy of Apligraf in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. 90: 133-146 [PMID: 12555288 DOI: 10. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006.2337/diacare. Rossi G. 204: 322-330 wound [PMID: healing 3753059 198609000-00011] 40 factors DOI: (PDWHF). Terzi A. Diabetes Care 1996. Ital J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005. Griffiths GD. a cultured human dermis. Br J Surg 2003. Ricotta JJ. Growth factors in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. 3: 233-240 [PMID: 18686746] 178 Bennett SP. Steed DP. Becaplermin gel in the treatment of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers. Butler EL. Diabetes Care 2003. Open and endovascular revascularization combined with regenerative dermal skin graft in the treatment of ischemic ulcers.4019] 179 Wieman TJ. Mengel M. Clinical efficacy of becaplermin (rhPDGF-BB) gel.6. Ferrari S. Ciresi KF. to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Schor SL. 26: 1701-1705 [PMID: 12766097 DOI: 10. Successful treatment with autologous platelet-derived Surg 1986. Iwasaki SD. 19: 350-354 [PMID: 8729158] 174 Niezgoda JA. Clin Interv Aging 2008. 12: 61-64 176 Dinh TL. Austin LL. Classification and treatment of chronic nonhealing wounds. Hershon KS.1002/bjs. Ann 10. Motolese A.1701] 173 Gentzkow GD. 18: 258-266 [PMID: 15942317] 175 Lorenzi G. Lipkin S. discussion 158S159S [PMID: 16799383] 177 Papanas N. Becaplermin Gel Studies Group.of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Surg 1998. Van Gils CC. Fiegel VD. Hodde JP. 176: 74S-79S [PMID: 9777976] 180 Knighton DR. Use of dermagraft. Prendergast JJ. Schor AM. Leese GP. Frykberg RG. 117: 152S-157S. Crippa M.
Steed DL. Su Y. Growth factors Regen 2008. Attard C. Analysis of patient cost for recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor therapy as the first-line treatment of the insured patient with a diabetic foot ulcer. Stojadinovic O. Golinko MS. Clinical evaluation of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor for the treatment of lower extremity ulcers.21.25177. Galiano RD. 22: 167-171 [PMID: 19325276 DOI: 10. Perry BH.1524- 475X. Milkovich N. Gendics C. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006. Brem H. 117: 143S-149S.x] 183 Wieman TJ. Efficacy and safety of a topical gel formulation of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (becaplermin) in patients with chronic neuropathic diabetic ulcers. Wound DOI: Repair 10.ASW.7547/87507315-90-2-57] 186 Lantis JC. Wound Repair 41 . Wieman TJ.1097/01.5. Tomic-Canic M.822] 184 Sibbald RG. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2000.a8] 187 Fang RC.00410. 90: 57-65 [PMID: 10697968 DOI: 10. Sampson AR. Boone D. A phase III randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Krasner D. A review of becaplermin gel in the treatment of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers.2337/diacare. Biologics 2008. Armstrong DG. Todd G. lower extremity diabetic ulcers: a combined analysis of four randomized studies. Nguyen H. Diabetes Care 1998.2008. Efficacy and safety of becaplermin (recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB) in patients with nonhealing. Smiell JM. Costeffectiveness of becaplermin for nonhealing neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. 2: 1-12 [PMID: 19707423] 188 Smiell JM. Ostomy Wound Manage 2003. Harkless LB. discussion 150S-151S [PMID: 16799381] 182 Barrientos S. Schwab BH.0000305466. 49: 76-84 [PMID: 14652415] 185 Hogge J. Hux M. Torrance G. 16: and cytokines 585-601 in [PMID: wound 19128254 healing. The potential benefits of advanced therapeutic modalities in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds.1111/j. 21: 822-827 [PMID: 9589248 DOI: 10. Adv Skin Wound Care 2009.181 Steed DL.
x] P. 42 . (Data adapted from Frykberg et al]18]).Regen 1999.Editor: Figure 1 The risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer.00335. MJ S. Ulcers may be distinguished by general or systemic considerations versus those localized to the foot and its pathology.1524- 475X.1046/j.Reviewer: Carter.1999.Editor: Gong XM L. 7: 335-346 [PMID: 10564562 DOI: 10.Editor: E.
Figure 2 Etiology of diabetic foot ulcer. (Data adapted from Boulton et al]17]). 43 .
Figure 3 Total contact cast for patients with diabetic foot ulcer. (Data adapted from Armstrong et al]82]). 44 .
45 .Figure 4 Removable cast walker (DH Walker) for patients with diabetic foot ulcer . (Data adapted from Rathur et al]86]).
Figure 5 Instant total contact cast for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. (Data adapted from Rathur et al]86]). The removable cast walker shown in Figure 5 has now been rendered irremovable by the application of bands of casting. 46 .
47 . (Data adapted from Armstrong et al]82]).Figure 6 Scotch-cast boot for off-loading pressure from the foot of a diabetic patient with foot ulcer.
(Data adapted from Armstrong et al]82]). 48 .Figure 7 Half shoe for off-loading pressure from the foot of a diabetic patient with foot ulcer.
Figure 8 Classification of the different advanced dressing types usually used in diabetic foot ulcer treatment. 49 . (Data adapted from Moura et al]95]).
The open end of the bag was sealed by an elastic bandage to the leg above the knee. (Data adapted from Landau 127] ). Oxygen in a concentration of 100% was pumped into the bag through a regular car wheel valve. 50 ] . Oxygen was allowed to leak around the bandage. and the pressure in the chamber was kept to between 20 and 30 mmHg (1.02–1.03 atm) above atmospheric pressure.Figure 9 The polyethylene hyperbaric chamber.
(Data adapted from Vikatmaa et al]147]). 51 .Figure 10 Schematic drawing of the negative pressure wound treatment.
Table 1 Different kind of debridement for patients with diabetic foot ulcer 52 .
Excision of necrotic tissues should extend as deeply and proximally as necessary until healthy. moist wound environment when arterial perfusion and venous drainage are maintained]18] Enzymatic The only formulation available in the UK contains Streptokinase and Streptodornase (Varidase Topical® Wyeth Laboratories).80] Advantages Only requires sterile scissors or a scalpel. bleeding soft tissues and bone are encountered]59] Mechanica This method includes wet to dry l dressings.Table Method Explanation Surgical or Callus and all nonviable soft Sharp tissues and bone remove from the open wound with a scalpel. and commonly used to clean wounds prior to surgical or sharp debridement]76] Autolytic This method occurs naturally in a healthy.80] 2 . This enzyme aggressively digests the proteins fibrin. The larvae have a 53 ferocious appetite for necrotic material while actively avoiding newly formed healthy tissue]79. high pressure irrigation. tissue nippers. pulsed lavage and hydrotherapy]76]. collagen and elastin. and curved scissors. so is costeffective]55] Disadvantages Requires a certain amount of skill to prevent enlarging the wound]55] Allows removal of It is not hardened necrosis discriminating and It’s cost-effective]55] may remove granulating tissue It may be painful for the patients]55] It is suitable for an It’s time extremely painful consuming and ]18] wound may require an equivocal time for treatment]18] They can be Streptokinase can applied directly be systemically into the necrotic absorbed and is area]55] therefore contraindicated in patients at risk of an MI It’s expensive]55] They discriminate between the necrotic and the granulating tissue]79] There may be a reluctance to use this treatment by patients and clinicians It’s expensive]79. which are commonly found in the necrotic exudate of a wound]77.78] Biological Sterile maggots of the green bottle fly (Lucilia sericata) are placed directly into the affected area and held in place by a close net dressing. curettes.
Example ankle-foot s Scotch-cast boots In-shoe (Figure 7) orthoses Metatarsal orthoses) head Walkers resection osteotomy/arthropla sty/os Windowed casts Socks ectomy/ exostectomy External fixation Offloading dressings Felted Custom splints foam/padding Plugs 54 .Common offloading techniques Techniqu Casting Footwear Surgical Other e techniques related offloading techniques techniques techniques Shoes or half ATL TCC (Figure 4) shoes iTCC (Figure 6) RCW (Figure 5) Bed rest (Figure 8) Sandals Insoles Liquid silicone Crutches/Canes/ injections/tissue Wheelchairs augmentation Callus debridement Bracing (patella tendon bearing.
iTCC: Instant TCC. Table 3 Classification of advanced wound dressings used for diabetic foot ulcers healin 55 . ATL: Achilles Tendon Lengthening. RCW: Removable cast walkers.Data adapted from Armstrong et al]82]. TCC: Total contact cast.
When in maceration contact Unpleasant odor]96] with the wound Comfeel surface this matrix forms a (Coloplast) gel to provide moist environment]102] Aquaform (Maersk These dressings consist of Absorbent Concerns Medical) use cross-linked polymers Hydrogels a insoluable Donate liquid (i. and These May cause maceration using to for exudate or exudative Aquaflo (Covidien) rehydrate a wound depending wounds]96] wound 56 infected wounds designed absorb are or Aid autolysis]96] for about highly .e.Type Example Duoderm These (Convatec) usually Hydrocolloids Explanation Advantages kind of dressings Absorbent composed of a Can be left for several hydrocolloid matrix bonded days Granuflex(Convat onto a vapor permeable film Aid autolysis]96] ec) Disadvantages Concerns about use for infected wounds May cause or foam backing. starch Intrasite Gel carboxymethylcellulose) (Smith and up Nephew) to 96% dressings water..
hydrogel surrounding skin]6] as Permeable to water vapor Aren’t suitable for foams. an amorphous hydrogel or as Allevyn beads]96] (Smith These dressings and Nephew) Foams Cavicare contain normally Highly absorbent and Occasional hydrophilic protective (Smith polyurethane foam and are Manipulate easily]96] and Nephew) with adhesive]96] designed to absorb wound Can be left up to seven Bulky]6] Biatain (Coloplast) exudate and maintain a moist days Films dermatitis macerate Tegaderm (3M) wound surface]103] Tegaderm (3M) Film dressings often form part Cheap May need wetting of the construction of other Manipulate easily before removal]96] Opsite (Smith and dressings Nephew) Thermal insulation]96] May such hydrocolloids. and oxygen but not to infected sheets and water microorganisms]95] wounds]107.108] be drained or the 57 .108] composite dressings. They are supplied in either flat sheets. which Nonabsorbent are If made up of several fluid collects materials with the film being under film it must used as the outer layer]107.on the wound moisture levels.
. Canada) Acticoat (Smith These dressing used to treat Antiseptic infected wounds as silver ions and Nephew) Absorbent]96] are thought to have antimicrobial properties]109] Reduce odor Urgosorb Silver Improved (Urgo) symptoms 58 High cost]96] pain-related Decrease ..l) Medihoney (Derma Silverimpregnated Sciences Inc. wound surface which can be Hemostatic Alginates off with dressing Useful in cavities]96] Australia) lifted Kaltostat removal or rinsed away with (ConvaTec) sterile saline. Bonding to a Sorbalgon secondary viscose pad USA. increases absorbency]104] (Hartman Inc.film replaced]6] Calcium Alginate The Dressing (Smith when alginate forms in contact a gel Highly absorbent May need wetting before removal]96] with the Bacteriostatic and Nephew Inc.
wound exudates Have a prolonged dressing wear time]112] 59 .
Table 4 Different types of nonvascular diabetic foot surgery Type Elective Explanation The main goal of this surgery is to relieve the pain associated with particular deformities such as hammertoes. including those with a past history of ulceration (but without active Curative ulceration) These procedures are performed to effect healing of a nonhealing ulcer or a chronically recurring ulcer when offloading and standard wound care techniques are not effective. bunions. and bone spurs in patients without peripheral sensory neuropathy and at low risk for ulceration Prophylacti These procedures are indicated to prevent ulceration from c occurring or recurring in patients with neuropathy. These include multiple surgical procedures aimed at removing areas of chronically increased peak pressure as well as procedures for resecting infected bone or joints as an alternative to partial foot Emergent amputation These procedures are performed to arrest or limit progression of acute infection Data adapted from Frykberg et al]18]. 60 .
al]173] joint. CA) wk duration. Mass) fore skin scaffold]164. depth tendon. La an outer layer of live allogeneic human neuropathic DFU of greater Falanga et al]169] Jolla. includes neonatal fibroblasts from human than Canton. or looks and feels like human skin]164.Table 5 Brief description of commonly used bioengineered tissue products Type Explanation Use RCT studies Apligraf (Advanced A bilayered living-skin construct containing It’s used for full-thickness Veves et al]168] Biohealing Inc. Both cell therapy (also keratinocytes and a second layer of live than 3 et without al]171] layers are grown from infant fore skin and tendon. Edmonds]170] allogeneic fibroblasts on type 1 collagen resistant to standard Steinberg dispersed in a dermal layer matrix. or bone exposure and is contraindicated et in 61 et .165] cultured on a 6 polyglactin thickness without wk in duration.165] bone exposure) and is contraindicated in infected Dermagraft ulcers]167] An allogeneic living-dermis equivalent and It’s used for DFU of greater Marston (Organogenesis Inc. capsule. full al]172] but Gentzkow muscle. muscle.
numerous crucial dermal including collagen. proteoglycans.167] (Cook An acellular biomaterial derived from porcine It’s used for full-thickness Niezgoda West small intestine submucosa. Lafayette.Oasis Biotech.165] DFU: Diabetic foot ulcer. 62 et . and VEGF]164. IN) infected ulcers]164. fibronectin. VEGF: Vascular endothelial growth factor. and bioactive fibroblast growth growth factors factor-2. such as transforming growth factor β1. contains DFU]174] al]174] components glycosaminoglycans (hyaluronic acid).

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.