Lucia Michailidis1, Shan M Bergin2, Terry P Haines3, Cylie M Williams4. 1. Monash Health, Podiatry Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash University, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Physiotherapy Department, Frankston, VIC, Australia. 2. Monash Health, Podiatry Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, VIC, Australia. 3. Monash University, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Physiotherapy Department, Frankston, VIC, Australia. 4. Monash University, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Physiotherapy Department; Allied Health Research, Peninsula Health, Allied Health, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
Management of diabetes-related foot ulcers often involves debridement of devitalized tissue, but evidence regarding the most effective debridement method is limited. PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical sharp debridement (NSSD) versus low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) for diabetes-related foot ulceration in adults. METHOD: Published studies (earliest date available to April 2017) comparing healing outcomes of LFUD- and NSSD-treated foot ulcers in adults were considered. The quality of publications that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the PEDro scale, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to compare percentage healed and percentage of ulcer size reduction. RESULTS: Of the 259 publications identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria but 2 of the 4 did not contain sufficient patient outcomes details for meta-analysis, leaving a sample size of 173 patients. Outcome data for the 2 studies included percentage of ulcers healed between the 2 debridement methods. This difference was not significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.76-1.11). The risk of bias for both studies was low. CONCLUSION: No difference in healing outcomes between NSSD and LFUD debridement of diabetic foot ulcers was found. Well-designed, controlled clinical studies are needed to address the current paucity of studies examining the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of debridement methods.
Management of diabetes-related foot ulcers often involves debridement of devitalized tissue, but evidence regarding the most effective debridement method is limited. PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical sharp debridement (NSSD) versus low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) for diabetes-related foot ulceration in adults. METHOD: Published studies (earliest date available to April 2017) comparing healing outcomes of LFUD- and NSSD-treated foot ulcers in adults were considered. The quality of publications that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the PEDro scale, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to compare percentage healed and percentage of ulcer size reduction. RESULTS: Of the 259 publications identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria but 2 of the 4 did not contain sufficient patient outcomes details for meta-analysis, leaving a sample size of 173 patients. Outcome data for the 2 studies included percentage of ulcers healed between the 2 debridement methods. This difference was not significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.76-1.11). The risk of bias for both studies was low. CONCLUSION: No difference in healing outcomes between NSSD and LFUD debridement of diabetic foot ulcers was found. Well-designed, controlled clinical studies are needed to address the current paucity of studies examining the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of debridement methods.
Authors: José Luis Lázaro-Martínez; Francisco Javier Álvaro-Afonso; David Sevillano-Fernández; Yolanda García-Álvarez; Irene Sanz-Corbalan; Esther García-Morales Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 4.241