DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20193128

Comparison of modified vacuum dressing and wet normal saline dressing in treatment of non-healing diabetic foot ulcers

Muhammed Muneer, Thomas K. Thomas, Dayananda Babu, Deepak Paul

Abstract


Background: Diabetic foot a complication of diabetes can lead to significant morbidity and have financial burden. The standard of dressing diabetic foot ulcers has been saline dressings. Negative pressure vacuum devices have come and had a significant impact on treatment of diabetic ulcers. But in developing countries the cost associated with it makes it inaccessible to a large population. Our study aims to compare the use of modified vacuum dressing against saline dressing and compare healing rates, costs involved and hospital stay of patients.

Methods: Our study was prospective study of 80 patients randomised into two groups, of 40 each. Group A consisted of patients with modified vacuum dressing and group B with wet saline dressing. Simple randomisation technique was used. They were compared for healing rates, hospital stay and cost involved.

Results: There was a 43.75% decrease in 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 rupees 14,381 compared to 19,465 rupees in group B.

Conclusions: From our study we found that modified vacuum dressing in spite of being cheap it reduces healing time, hospital stay there by the cost incurred to patients. So we recommended modified vacuum dressings as a go to method of treating diabetic foot ulcers.


Keywords


Diabetic foot, Negative pressure dressing, Modified vacuum dressing, Wound healing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(5):1047–53.

Jain AKC, Viswanath S. Studying major amputations in a developing country using Amit Jain’s typing and scoring system for diabetic foot complications-time for standardization of diabetic foot practice. Int Surg J. 2016;2(1):26–30.

Boulton AJM, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. The global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet (London, England). 2005;366(9498):1719–24.

Miller C. The History of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT): From “Lip Service” to the Modern Vacuum System. J Am Coll Clin Wound Spec. 2012;4(3):61–2.

Mody GN, Zurovcik DR, Joharifard S, Kansayisa G, Uwimana G, Baganizi E, et al. Biomechanical and safety testing of a simplified negative-pressure wound therapy device. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):1140–6.

Webb LX, Pape H-C. Current thought regarding the mechanism of action of negative pressure wound therapy with reticulated open cell foam. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(10 Suppl):S135-7.

Hussain A, Singh K, Singh M. Cost Effectiveness of Vacuum-Assisted Closure and its modifications: a review. ISRN Plast Surg. 2013;2013.

Nather A, Chionh SB, Han AYY, Chan PPL, Nambiar A. Effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy in the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2010;39(5):353.

Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJM. Resource utilization and economic costs of care based on a randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. Am J Surg. 2008;195(6):782–8.

McCallon SK, Knight CA, Valiulus JP, Cunningham MW, McCulloch JM, Farinas LP. Vacuum-assisted closure versus saline-moistened gauze in the healing of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000;46(8):28–32.

Ramanujam CL, Stapleton JJ, Zgonis T. Negative-pressure wound therapy in the management of diabetic Charcot foot and ankle wounds. Diabet Foot Ankle. 2013;4(1):20878.