Prospective study shows improved healing rates and reduced hospital stay in diabetic foot ulcer patients using modified vacuum dressing, suggesting a cost-effective alternative.
Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a common, complex, and costly sequela of diabetes mellitus. DFU is a serious global health issue that can lead to lower extremity amputation, causing significant morbidity and increased financial burden. Management of diabetic foot ulcers remains a significant challenge that requires thorough knowledge of available dressing techniques in addition to frequent routine evaluation. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), or vacuum-assisted closure (VAC), is a recently introduced technology that has been widely used in the treatment of such ulcers. However, the consumables for VAC are very expensive and not economically feasible in developing countries. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effects of modified vacuum dressing compared with standard care wound therapy (wet saline dressing) and compare healing rates. A prospective study of 50 conveniently selected patients divided into two groups (25 each) was carried out. Group A consisted of patients treated with modified vacuum dressing and Group B with wet saline dressing. Both groups were compared for healing rates. There was a 44.75% decrease in the area of the ulcer in Group A compared to 25.15% in Group B after 4 weeks. Decrease in wound depth was 55.41% and 26.94% in Group A and B, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 33.18 days in Group A compared to 45.58 days in Group B. The average cost incurred for patients in Group A was 18,756 Egyptian pounds compared to 19,662 Egyptian pounds in Group B. The vacuum dressing method reduces the average time to complete healing as well as hospital stay. Thus, we recommend that modified vacuum dressings might be considered a promising method for treating diabetic foot ulcers
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussein et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: