Dataset Information

Frequency of sharp wound debridement in the management of diabetes-related foot ulcers: exploring current practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conservative sharp wound debridement (CSWD) is fundamental to wound bed preparation. Evidence-based practice guidelines strongly recommend frequent CSWD of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) based on expert opinion and observational studies which suggest that more frequent debridement is associated with better healing outcomes.

Aim

To document current practice with regards to CSWD of DFU and whether this is performed at every visit, how often and what factors determine debridement frequency.

Method

Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data tools, a secure, web-based application. The survey was distributed through podiatry managers and relevant clinical networks between October 2017 and February 2018.

Results

One hundred clinicians opened the survey and seventy-five surveys were completed by n = 53 NSW Health (Australia) employed podiatrists (representing 41% of all NSW Health podiatrists), 11 privately practicing podiatrists, and 11 nurses. Most (n = 47) worked in metropolitan areas versus regional/remote (n = 28). CSWD was the most frequently used debridement method, performed at every visit by most (84%) of podiatrists. Callus, slough and infection presence were the top 3 most important determinants of frequency, with staff time (a limiting factor) ranking 4th. Regional/remote podiatrists practiced less frequent debridement compared with those in metropolitan areas (debridement every 2 weeks or less = 71% regional podiatrists versus 45% metropolitan podiatrists) (p = 0.024).

Conclusion and clinical implications

CSWD was the predominant form of debridement used with debridement occurring at every treatment visit for most of the clinicians surveyed. Debridement frequency was determined by clinical wound indications and staffing resources, with regional/remote podiatrists providing debridement less often than their metropolitan colleagues.

SUBMITTER: Nube VL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359122 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Label‑free quantitative mass spectrometry was used to analyze the differences in the granulation tissue protein expression profiles of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) before and after negative‑pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to understand how NPWT promotes the healing of diabetic foot wounds. A total of three patients with DFUs hospitalized for Wagner grade 3 were enrolled. The patients received NPWT for one week. The granulation tissue samples of the patients prior to and following NPWT for one week were collected. The protein expression profiles were analyzed with label‑free quantitative mass spectrometry and the differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in the DFU patients prior to and following NPWT for one week were identified. Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analyses were conducted to annotate the DEPs and DEP‑associated signaling pathways. Western blotting and ELISA were performed to validate the results. By comparing the differences in the protein profiles of granulation tissue samples prior to and following NPWT for one week, 36 proteins with significant differences were identified (P<0.05); 33 of these proteins were upregulated and three proteins were downregulated. NPWT altered proteins mainly associated with antioxidation and detoxification, the cytoskeleton, regulation of the inflammatory response, complement and coagulation cascades and lipid metabolism. The functional validation of the DEPs demonstrated that the levels of cathepsin S in peripheral blood and granulation tissue were significantly lower than those prior to NPWT (P<0.05), while the levels of protein S isoform 1, inter α‑trypsin inhibitor heavy chain H4 and peroxiredoxin‑2 in peripheral blood and granulation tissue were significantly higher than those prior to NPWT (P<0.05). The present study identified multiple novel proteins altered by NPWT and laid a foundation for further studies investigating the mechanism of action of NPWT.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of the DiaFu study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients with diabetic foot wounds in clinical practice.DesignIn this controlled clinical superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio stratified by study site and ulcer severity grade using a web-based-tool.SettingThis German national study was conducted in 40 surgical and internal medicine inpatient and outpatient facilities specialised in diabetes foot care.Participants368 patients were randomised and 345 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Adult patients suffering from a diabetic foot ulcer at least for 4 weeks and without contraindication for NPWT were allowed to be included.InterventionsNPWT was compared with standard moist wound care (SMWC) according to local standards and guidelines.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was wound closure within 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wound-related and treatment-related adverse events (AEs), amputations, time until optimal wound bed preparation, wound size and wound tissue composition, pain and quality of life (QoL) within 16 weeks, and recurrences and wound closure within 6 months.ResultsIn the ITT population, neither the wound closure rate (difference: n=4 (2.5% (95% CI-4.7% - 9.7%); p=0.53)) nor the time to wound closure (p=0.244) was significantly different between the treatment arms. 191 participants (NPWT 127; SMWC 64) had missing endpoint documentations, premature therapy ends or unauthorised treatment changes. 96 participants in the NPWT arm and 72 participants in the SMWC arm had at least one AE (p=0.007), but only 16 AEs were related to NPWT.ConclusionsNPWT was not superior to SMWC in diabetic foot wounds in German clinical practice. Overall, wound closure rate was low. Documentation deficits and deviations from treatment guidelines negatively impacted the outcome wound closure.Trial registration numbersNCT01480362 and DRKS00003347.