Department of Endocrine and Metabolism, Chengdu Fifth People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Affiliated Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Geriatric Diseases Institute of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
Front Public Health. 2023 Dec 11;11:1271706. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1271706. eCollection 2023.
The choice of the debridement method is very important for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), but the relative effectiveness of different debridement methods in the healing of DFUs remains unclear. This study conducted a network meta-analysis of the relative healing effectiveness of different debridement methods in patients with DFUs.
We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception up to 30 June 2023 for screening randomized controlled trials on the healing effectiveness of debridement in DFUs. Outcome measures included ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate. The Cochrane Risk Bias Tool, version 2.0, was used to assess the risk of bias in the included trials. R software was used for performing statistical analysis and GraphPad Prism was used for image plotting.
A total of 19 randomized controlled trials were included, and 900 patients with DFUs were assessed in this analysis. The proteolytic fraction from the latex of (P1G10) in enzymatic debridement showed the best ulcer healing rate (SURCA = 0.919) when compared with the standard of care (SOC) group, with a mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.40 (0.57, 2.36). Kiwifruit extract demonstrated the best effect on the ulcer area reduction rate (SURCA = 0.931), when compared with that in the SOC group, with an MD and 95% CI of 0.47 (0.27, 0.66).
Enzymatic debridement was superior to other debridement methods in terms of ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate in patients with DFUs. However, as the quality of the included trials is low, enzymatic debridement can be used as a candidate debridement method in addition to sharp-based debridement in clinical practice.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441715.
清创方法的选择对糖尿病足溃疡(DFU)的愈合非常重要,但不同清创方法在 DFU 愈合中的相对有效性仍不清楚。本研究对 DFU 患者不同清创方法的相对愈合效果进行了网络荟萃分析。
我们在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中进行了文献检索,检索时间从数据库建立到 2023 年 6 月 30 日,以筛选关于 DFU 清创愈合效果的随机对照试验。结局指标包括溃疡愈合率和溃疡面积减少率。使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚工具(版本 2.0)评估纳入试验的偏倚风险。使用 R 软件进行统计分析,GraphPad Prism 用于图像绘制。
共纳入 19 项随机对照试验,本分析共纳入 900 例 DFU 患者。与标准护理(SOC)组相比,酶清创法中的(P1G10)蛋白酶分解产物显示出最佳的溃疡愈合率(SURCA=0.919),其平均差异(MD)和 95%置信区间(CI)为 1.40(0.57,2.36)。与 SOC 组相比,猕猴桃提取物对溃疡面积减少率的效果最佳(SURCA=0.931),MD 和 95%CI 为 0.47(0.27,0.66)。
在 DFU 患者中,酶清创法在溃疡愈合率和溃疡面积减少率方面优于其他清创方法。然而,由于纳入试验的质量较低,酶清创法可以作为临床实践中除锐器清创之外的候选清创方法。
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441715。