OBJECTIVE: The amniotic membrane has biological properties that are beneficial to the wound healing process of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Our aim is to analyse the scientific evidence found in literature on the use of the amniotic membrane to stimulate DFU healing. METHOD: A systematic review of amniotic membrane's influence was undertaken, using the search terms 'placenta' 'diabetic foot' 'amnion' and biological dressing', assessing the outcomes 'wound healing' and 'wound healing time', in DFU. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified, and the risk of bias was analysed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted a meta-analysis of the two outcomes to evaluate the level of evidence. RESULTS: We identified six clinical trials, with a total of 331 patients. The most common risks of bias in the studies were selection, attrition, and detection biases. From the meta-analysis, the difference of the intervention group (amnion) in relation to the control group was statistically significant. We found that wound healing in the group treated with amniotic membrane occurs 2.32 times more often and is 32 days faster in comparison with the group that used conventional dressings. CONCLUSION: There is no statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of amniotic membrane in comparison with other conventional dressings. However, there is a clear tendency for the use of amniotic membrane treatment to result in a larger number of DFUs healing at a quicker rate.
OBJECTIVE: The amniotic membrane has biological properties that are beneficial to the wound healing process of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Our aim is to analyse the scientific evidence found in literature on the use of the amniotic membrane to stimulate DFU healing. METHOD: A systematic review of amniotic membrane's influence was undertaken, using the search terms 'placenta' 'diabetic foot' 'amnion' and biological dressing', assessing the outcomes 'wound healing' and 'wound healing time', in DFU. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified, and the risk of bias was analysed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted a meta-analysis of the two outcomes to evaluate the level of evidence. RESULTS: We identified six clinical trials, with a total of 331 patients. The most common risks of bias in the studies were selection, attrition, and detection biases. From the meta-analysis, the difference of the intervention group (amnion) in relation to the control group was statistically significant. We found that wound healing in the group treated with amniotic membrane occurs 2.32 times more often and is 32 days faster in comparison with the group that used conventional dressings. CONCLUSION: There is no statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of amniotic membrane in comparison with other conventional dressings. However, there is a clear tendency for the use of amniotic membrane treatment to result in a larger number of DFUs healing at a quicker rate.
Authors: André O Paggiaro; Monica B Mathor; Walcy R Teodoro; Cesár Isaac; Vera L Capelozzi; Rolf Gemperli Journal: Organogenesis Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 2.500