Randomized trial demonstrates equivalent healing with platelet-rich concentrates across diabetic and venous ulcers, suggesting etiology does not significantly alter therapeutic response.
Background: Platelet-rich concentrates have emerged as adjuncts in chronic wound management, with healing potential influenced by underlying etiology. Objective: To evaluate whether ulcer etiology (diabetic neuropathic vs. venous ulcers) influences healing outcomes following treatment with platelet-rich concentrates (platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin) in chronic nonhealing ulcers, using secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Patients and methods: In this prospective stratified randomized controlled study, 36 patients were stratified by ulcer etiology (18 diabetic foot ulcers, 18 venous leg ulcers, randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio within each stratum to receive platelet-rich plasma, platelet-rich fibrin, or conventional therapy. ImageJ was used to assess and measure the ulcer before and after the reduction in wound area over a period of 8 weeks. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between diabetic neuropathic and venous ulcers in surface area reduction (week 4: P =0.436; week 8: P =0.246), healing rate (week 4: P =0.74; week 8: P =0.55), or time to complete healing ( P =0.5592), despite numerically greater improvements in the diabetic group. Conclusion: Healing outcomes following treatment with platelet-rich concentrates were comparable between diabetic neuropathic and venous ulcers. Although diabetic ulcers showed numerically greater improvement in some parameters, and venous ulcers had a higher complete-healing rate, these differences were not statistically significant. While baseline demographic differences between groups may have influenced healing patterns, they did not result in statistically significant differences in overall outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: