DSpace Repository

A systematic review and meta-analysis of debridement methods for chronic diabetic foot ulcers

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Elraiyah, Tarig
dc.contributor.author Domecq, Juan-Pablo
dc.contributor.author Prutsky, Gabriela
dc.contributor.author Tsapas, Apostolos
dc.contributor.author Nabhan, Mohammed
dc.contributor.author Frykberg, Robert-G.
dc.contributor.author Hasan, Rim
dc.contributor.author Firwana, Belal
dc.contributor.author Prokop, Larry-J.
dc.contributor.author Murad, Mohammad-Hassan
dc.date.accessioned 2019-02-06T14:45:12Z
dc.date.available 2019-02-06T14:45:12Z
dc.date.issued 2016
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/5057
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Several methods of debridement of diabetic foot ulcers are currently used. The relative efficacy of these methods is not well established. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find the best available evidence for the effect of debridement on diabetic foot wound outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2011 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational comparative studies. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs and three nonrandomized studies reporting on 800 patients. The risk of bias was moderate overall. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed that autolytic debridement significantly increased the healing rate (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-2.64). Meta-analysis of four studies (one RCT) showed that larval debridement reduced amputation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.88) but did not increase complete healing (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91). Surgical debridement was associated with shorter healing time compared with conventional wound care (one RCT). Insufficient evidence was found for comparisons between autolytic and larval debridement (one RCT), between ultrasound-guided and surgical debridement, and between hydrosurgical and surgical debridement. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature supports the efficacy of several debridement methods, including surgical, autolytic, and larval debridement. Comparative effectiveness evidence between these methods and supportive evidence for other methods is of low quality due to methodologic limitations and imprecision. Hence, the choice of debridement method at the present time should be based on the available expertise, patient preferences, the clinical context and cost. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof urn:issn:1097-6809
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Adult en_US
dc.subject Aged en_US
dc.subject Debridement/methods en_US
dc.subject Diabetic Foot/surgery en_US
dc.subject Female en_US
dc.subject Humans en_US
dc.subject Male en_US
dc.subject Middle Aged en_US
dc.subject Treatment Outcome en_US
dc.title A systematic review and meta-analysis of debridement methods for chronic diabetic foot ulcers en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.002
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.00 es_PE
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.11
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.04


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics