Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS FT, Derby, UK.
Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital of Malmö, Sweden.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016 Jan;32 Suppl 1:154-68. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2707.
The outcome of management of diabetic foot ulcers remains a challenge, and there remains continuing uncertainty concerning optimal approaches to management. It is for these reasons that in 2008 and 2012, the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) working group on wound healing published systematic reviews of the evidence to inform protocols for routine care and to highlight areas, which should be considered for further study. The same working group has now updated this review by considering papers on the interventions to improve the healing of chronic ulcers published between June 2010 and June 2014. Methodological quality of selected studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Selected studies fell into the following ten categories: sharp debridement and wound bed preparation with larvae or hydrotherapy; wound bed preparation using antiseptics, applications and dressing products; resection of the chronic wound; oxygen and other gases, compression or negative pressure therapy; products designed to correct aspects of wound biochemistry and cell biology associated with impaired wound healing; application of cells, including platelets and stem cells; bioengineered skin and skin grafts; electrical, electromagnetic, lasers, shockwaves and ultrasound and other systemic therapies, which did not fit in the aforementioned categories. Heterogeneity of studies prevented pooled analysis of results. Of the 2161 papers identified, 30 were selected for grading following full text review. The present report is an update of the earlier IWGDF systematic reviews, and the conclusion is similar: that with the possible exception of negative pressure wound therapy in post-operative wounds, there is little published evidence to justify the use of newer therapies. Analysis of the evidence continues to present difficulties in this field as controlled studies remain few and the majority continue to be of poor methodological quality.
糖尿病足溃疡的治疗结果仍然是一个挑战,对于最佳的治疗方法仍然存在持续的不确定性。正是出于这些原因,2008 年和 2012 年,国际糖尿病足工作组(IWGDF)伤口愈合工作组发表了系统评价证据,为常规护理方案提供信息,并强调了应进一步研究的领域。该工作组现在通过考虑 2010 年 6 月至 2014 年 6 月期间发表的关于改善慢性溃疡愈合干预措施的论文,更新了这篇综述。两名评审员使用苏格兰校际指南网络标准独立评估选定研究的方法学质量。选定的研究分为以下十个类别:使用幼虫或水疗进行锐性清创和伤口床准备;使用防腐剂、制剂和敷料进行伤口床准备;慢性伤口切除;氧和其他气体、压缩或负压治疗;用于纠正与伤口愈合受损相关的伤口生化和细胞生物学方面的产品;应用细胞,包括血小板和干细胞;生物工程皮肤和皮肤移植物;电、电磁、激光、冲击波和超声等其他全身治疗,这些治疗方法不属于上述类别。研究的异质性使得无法对结果进行汇总分析。在确定的 2161 篇论文中,有 30 篇在全文审查后被选中进行分级。本报告是 IWGDF 系统评价的更新,结论类似:除了术后伤口的负压伤口治疗外,几乎没有发表的证据可以证明使用新的治疗方法是合理的。由于对照研究仍然很少,而且大多数研究的方法学质量仍然较差,因此该领域的证据分析仍然存在困难。