The implementation of a structured follow-up with the use of orthesis and shoes can reduce the incidence of DFU in diabetic patients who are at high ulcerative risk and its related costs.

Level II, prospective comparative study.

No abstract

Aim To investigate the effectiveness of fast-track pathway (FTP) in the management of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) after 2 years of implementation. Methods The study group was composed of patients who referred to a specialized DF centre due to DFUs. Those were divided in two groups: early referral (ER) and late referral (LR) patients. According to FTP, ER were considered patients who referred after 2 weeks in the case of uncomplicated non-healing ulcers (superficial, not infected, not ischemic), within 4 days in the case of complicated ulcers (ischemic, deep, mild infection) and within 24 h in the case of severely complicated ulcers (abscess, wet gangrene, fever). Healing, healing time, minor and major amputation, hospitalization, and survival were evaluated. The follow-up was 6 months. Results Two hundred patients were recruited. The mean age was 70 ± 13 years, 62.5% were male, 91% were affected by type 2 diabetes with a mean duration of 18 ± 11 years. Within the group, 79.5% had ER while 20.5% had LR. ER patients showed increased rates of healing (89.9 vs. 41.5%, p = 0.001), reduced healing time (10 vs. 16 weeks, p = 0.0002), lower rates of minor (17.6 vs. 75.6%, p < 0.0001) and major amputation (0.6 vs. 36.6%, p < 0.0001), hospitalization (47.1 vs. 82.9%, p = 0.001), and mortality (4.4 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.02) in comparison to LR. At multivariate analysis, ER was an independent predictor of healing, while LR was an independent predictor for minor and major amputation and hospitalization. Conclusion After the FTP implementation, less cases of LR were reported in comparison to ER. ER was an independent predictor of positive outcomes such as healing, healing time, limb salvage, hospitalization, and survival.

Objective: Fluorescence biomodulation (FB), a form of photobiomodulation (PBM) that is also known as low energy level light (LELL), has become an increasingly used clinical tool to induce wound healing in wounds that remain recalcitrant to treatment. In a real-life clinical setting, the aim of the EUREKA (EvalUation of Real-lifE use of Klox biophotonic system in chronic wound mAnagement) study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of LumiHeal, a system based on FB, in the treatment of chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs), diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and pressure ulcers (PUs). The effects of this FB system on the modulation of wound healing in chronic ulcers through FB induction were previously examined in an interim analysis of this study. Method: A multicenter, prospective, observational, uncontrolled trial in 12 clinical sites in Italy. The wound was cleansed with saline and a 2mm thick layer of a chromophore gel was applied to the affected area in a biweekly regimen. The area was then illuminated with the LED activator for five minutes at a distance of 5cm. Treatment was used in combination with standard of care specific to each type of chronic wound (VLU, DFU, PU). Wound area evaluation was assessed using the Silhouette Imaging System and quality of life (QoL) with the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS). A seven-point evaluation of the clinicans' view was also examined. Results: We enrolled 100 subjects, with the final analysis including 99 patients/ulcers consisting of 52 VLUs, 32 DFUs and 15 PUs. Total wound closure at the end of the study was achieved in 47 patients by aetiology: 26 VLUs (50% of VLUs); 16 DFUs (50% of DFUs); and five PUs (33.3% of PUs). The mean wound area regression at last study assessment was significant for VLUs (41.0%; p<0.001) and DFUs (52.4%; p<0.001). After four weeks of treatment, it was possible to significantly predict if the ulcer would respond (defined as a decrease of wound size) to the study treatment. Adherence was high (95.2%) and no related serious adverse events were reported during the study. QoL significantly improved, with an increase of 15.4% of the total score, using the CWIS (p<0.001). Conclusion: The study confirmed a positive efficacy profile of the FB system in inducing the wound healing process in three different types of hard-to-heal chronic wounds. The treatment was shown to be safe and well tolerated by the patients, with a significant improvement in patient QoL. This approach offers an effective modality for the treatment of hard-to-heal chronic ulcers.

Aims To evaluate the patients' perceptions of telemedicine visits during COVID-19 lockdown and their level of anxiety about COVID and diabetic foot (DF). Methods In May 2020, we contacted by phone all the patients who underwent in March and April to remote monitoring visits for DF during the lockdown for COVID-19, with a structured interview, focusing on their perceptions about telemedicine service for DF and on the anxiety toward COVID and DF. Results We analyzed 257 remote monitoring visits in 211 patients. Two hundred and six patients answered the follow-up interview; 177 patients (85.9%) remembered the monitoring visit, 140 (67.9%) the health care professional and 181 patients (87.9%) the reason of contact; 169 patients were alone during the visit, 37 with a relative. Patients judged useful both the monitoring during pandemic (4.35 ± 0.28 on a maximum of five) and the possibility to continue after the lockdown (4.34 ± 0.23 on a maximum of five). Eventually, we observed that DF patients were more worried by DF than by COVID on a scale from 0 (not fear at all) to 5 (terrified) (4.79 ± 0.05 vs. 3.27 ± 1.03, p < 0.05). This difference was higher in previously ulcerated patients (4.84 ± 0.03 vs. 3.03 ± 1.13, p < 0.05) and even more in amputees (4.93 ± 0.03 vs. 2.73 ± 1.21, p < 0.05). Conclusions DF patients appreciated televisits during lockdown and the continuation of this service after its end. In this context DF prevails on COVID in the worries of patients, especially if they are recurrent ones. Keywords Diabetic foot • COVID • Follow-up • PandemicThis article belongs to the topical collection Health Education and Psycho-Social Aspects, managed by Massimo Porta and Marina Trento.

No abstract

ObjectiveInterest has grown regarding photobiomodulation (PBM) with low-level light therapy, which has been shown to positively affect the stages of the wound healing process. In a real-life context clinical setting, the objective of the EUREKA study was to investigate efficacy, safety, and quality of life associated with the use of a BioPhotonic gel (LumiHeal™) in the treatment of chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs), diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), and pressure ulcers (PUs). This BioPhotonic gel represents a new, first-in-class emission spectrum of light, including fluorescence, to induce PBM and modulate healing.DesignThe multicenter, prospective, interventional, uncontrolled, open-label study enrolled 100 patients in 12 wound centers in Italy. We performed an early interim analysis based on the first 33 subjects (13 VLU, 17 DFU, 3 PU) in seven centers who completed the study.Main resultsSeventeen patients (52%) achieved total wound closure (full re-epithelialization for 2 weeks) during the study period. Two patients (6%) were considered “almost closed” (decrease of the wound area of more than 90% at study end) and three others (9%) were considered “ready for skin grafting”. No related serious adverse events were observed, and the compliance was excellent. After the treatment, the average time to “pain-free” was 11.9 days in the VLU group. Quality of life was improved with overall increase of 26.4% of the total score (Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule, p=0.001).ConclusionThe study revealed a positive efficacy profile of the BioPhotonic gel in promoting wound healing and reactivating the healing process in different types of chronic, hard-to-heal wounds. The treatment was shown to be safe and well tolerated by the patients, and a reduction of pain perception was also detected during the treatment period. The improvement of the quality of life was accompanied by a high level of clinician satisfaction.