Comparison of the mean healing time of wound after vacuum assisted closure versus conventional dressing in diabetic foot ulcer patients

Abstract

<p><strong>Background</strong>: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU’s) are chronic wounds in diabetics resulting from ischemia, angiogenesis defects and impaired immunity. Vacuum assisted closure (VAC) provides a new paradigm for diabetic wound dressing. This study compares the mean healing time of wound after VAC versus conventional dressing (CD) in DFU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong>: This randomized controlled trial carried out at surgery department, at tertiary teaching hospital over a period from 28<sup>th</sup> February-27<sup>th</sup> August 2020. Total 60 patients of age (25-75 years), both genders having DFU were included. Patients were placed randomly into two groups i.e., group A (VAC therapy) and group B (CD), by using lottery method. Mean healing time noted in both groups. For statistical analysis, SPSS version 20.0 was used. Independent ‘t’ test used to compare the mean healing time of both groups and p≤0.05 considered significant. Effect modifiers were controlled through stratification and post-stratification independent ‘t’ test, to see their effect on healing time. P≤0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results</strong>: The mean age of patients in group A was 53.13±9.09 years and in group B was 53.53±9.09 years. Out of 60 patients 41 (68.33%) were males and 19 (31.67%) were females. The mean healing time of wound in DFU patients after VAC closure (group A) was 12.07±2.15 days and after CD (group B) was 17.50±3.16 days with p=0.0001.</p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: Study concluded that mean healing time after VAC is less in DFU patients as compared to CD.</p>

Diabetic foot wound ulcers management by vacuum sealing drainage: A meta‐analysis

“…Following an assessment of 1498 pertinent examinations, 23 tests released between 2000 and 2023 were included in the meta‐analysis since they matched the criteria for inclusion. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 Table 2 summarizes the findings of these investigations. A total of 1928 people with diabetic foot ulcers were in the study's starting point, 929 of them were using vacuum sealing drainage, and 999 were using standard therapy.…”

“…Following an assessment of 1498 pertinent examinations, 23 tests released between 2000 and 2023 were included in the meta‐analysis since they matched the criteria for inclusion 18–40 . Table 2 summarizes the findings of these investigations.…”

“…The sample size was 102–504 personals. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 The examined data revealed that vacuum sealing drainage had significantly lower wound healing, lower duration of therapy, higher wound size reduction and lower complication compared with standard therapy in personal with diabetic foot ulcers. Yet, attention should be paid to its values since most of the selected examinations had a low sample size (19 out of 23 examinations were >100).…”

“…Twenty‐three examinations from 2000 to 2023 were enrolled for the present meta‐analysis comprising 1928 personals with diabetic foot ulcers were in the used studies' starting point, 929 of them were using vacuum sealing drainage and 999 were using standard therapy. The sample size was 102–504 personals 18–40 . The examined data revealed that vacuum sealing drainage had significantly lower wound healing, lower duration of therapy, higher wound size reduction and lower complication compared with standard therapy in personal with diabetic foot ulcers.…”