Enzymatic debridement with collagenase is a technique that is commonly used in clinical practice. This systematic review examines the effect of collagenase on all kinds of wounds, compared to an alternative therapy, on wound healing, wound bed characteristics, cost-effectiveness and the occurrence of adverse events. We conducted a systematic literature search on available literature in Cochrane databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all randomised controlled trials obtained involving collagenase of all kinds of wounds based on inclusion criteria. Of the 1411 citations retrieved, 22 studies reported outcomes with the use of collagenase either for wound healing or wound debridement. Results support the use of collagenase for enzymatic debridement in pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and in conjunction with topical antibiotics for burns. However, studies presented a high risk of bias. Risk ratio of developing an adverse event related to collagenase versus the alternative treatment was statistically significant (for 10 studies, RR: 1·79, 95% CI 1·24-2·59, I =0%, P = 0·002). There is very limited data on the effect of collagenase as an enzymatic debridement technique on wounds. More independant research and adequate reporting of adverse events are warranted.

To better assess the at-risk foot and to prevent ulceration, the practitioner should integrate quantitative models of dynamic foot plantar pressures, such as in-shoe and barefoot PPPs, with the regular clinical screening examination. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate causality between other variables of mechanical stress and DFUs.

The aim of this study was to determine the wound healing outcomes of patients with a plantar diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) treated with an interdisciplinary team approach, and to identify associated variables. A retrospective observational cohort study of 140 adult patients, with a plantar DFU, treated between 2012 and 2018 at a wound care clinic of a University affiliated hospital was conducted. Predictive and explicative analyses were conducted with logistic multivariate methods and with a Receiver Operating Characteristics curve. The best predictor of wound healing at 3 months was a 41.8% wound size reduction at 4 weeks (AUC: 0.86; sensitivity: 83.1%; specificity: 67.2%, positive predictive value: 72.8%; negative predictive value: 78.9%; positive and negative likelihood ratios: 2.53 and 0.25, respectively). Main baseline variables independently associated with this predictor were: a monophasic Doppler waveform (OR 7.52, 95% CI [2.64-21.39]), cigarette smoking (OR 4.7, 95% CI [1.44-15.29]), and male gender (OR 3.58, 95% CI [1.30-9.87]). The health care provider should be cautious and intensify its management of DFUs particularly with patients of male gender; smoking, having a monophasic waveform with a hand-held Doppler, and not achieving a minimal 41.8% wound area reduction at 4 weeks of treatment.