Gu Haiyun, Zhao Xiaoqin, Sun Yi, Ding Yiyi, Ouyang Rong
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Surgery. 2025 Apr;180:109098. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.109098. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy of negative-pressure wound therapy with advanced moist wound therapy in managing diabetic foot ulcers.
A total of 450 participants with diabetic foot ulcers were randomized to receive either negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 204) or advanced moist wound therapy (n = 246) over 18 months. The primary outcome was complete ulcer closure, with secondary outcomes including time to closure, wound size reduction, infection rates, recurrence, and amputation rates. Wound dimensions were measured using digital planimetry, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was applied to assess time to closure.
Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between treatment modalities. In the negative-pressure wound therapy group (n = 204), complete ulcer closure was achieved in 177 patients (87%), which was significantly greater than the advanced moist wound therapy group (n = 246) with 72 patients (29%) (P < .001). Although the mean time to wound closure was marginally extended in the negative-pressure wound therapy group (73 ± 45 days vs 64 ± 49 days; P = .045), this cohort demonstrated substantially more significant wound area reduction (48% ± 15 vs 25% ± 30; P < .001). Secondary outcome analysis revealed that negative-pressure wound therapy was associated with markedly reduced adverse events: wound infection (40 patients [20%] vs 95 patients [39%]; P < .001), ulcer recurrence (40 patients [20%] vs 113 patients [46%]; P < .001), and amputation rates (30 patients [15%] vs 132 patients [54%]; P < .001). Longitudinal assessment through Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated significantly greater wound closure probability and reduced complication risk in the negative-pressure wound therapy group throughout the follow-up period (log-rank P < .001).
Negative-pressure wound therapy is significantly more effective than advanced moist wound therapy in treating diabetic foot ulcers, demonstrating superior outcomes in wound closure, infection control, and amputation prevention. This study highlights negative-pressure wound therapy as the preferred treatment option for complex diabetic foot ulcers, warranting further research into its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.
本随机对照试验旨在比较负压伤口治疗与先进湿性伤口治疗在糖尿病足溃疡管理中的疗效。
共有450例糖尿病足溃疡患者被随机分组,在18个月内分别接受负压伤口治疗(n = 204)或先进湿性伤口治疗(n = 246)。主要结局为溃疡完全愈合,次要结局包括愈合时间、伤口面积缩小、感染率、复发率和截肢率。使用数字平面测量法测量伤口尺寸,并应用Kaplan-Meier生存分析评估愈合时间。
分析显示治疗方式之间的临床结局存在统计学显著差异。在负压伤口治疗组(n = 204)中,177例患者(87%)实现了溃疡完全愈合,显著高于先进湿性伤口治疗组(n = 246)的72例患者(29%)(P <.001)。尽管负压伤口治疗组的平均伤口愈合时间略有延长(73±45天对64±49天;P =.045),但该队列的伤口面积缩小更为显著(48%±15对25%±30;P <.001)。次要结局分析显示,负压伤口治疗与不良事件显著减少相关:伤口感染(40例患者[20%]对95例患者[39%];P <.001)、溃疡复发(40例患者[20%]对113例患者[46%];P <.001)和截肢率(30例患者[15%]对132例患者[54%];P <.001)。通过Kaplan-Meier生存分析进行的纵向评估表明,在整个随访期间,负压伤口治疗组的伤口愈合概率显著更高,并发症风险更低(对数秩检验P <.001)。
负压伤口治疗在治疗糖尿病足溃疡方面明显比先进湿性伤口治疗更有效,在伤口愈合、感染控制和截肢预防方面显示出更好的效果。本研究强调负压伤口治疗是复杂糖尿病足溃疡的首选治疗方案,值得进一步研究其长期益处和成本效益。