Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_896_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
20 Microbiology andTreatment ofDiabetic Foot Infection
https://t.me/med1917
377
65. Karthik S, etal. Microbiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis—is it
geographically variable? Foot (Edinb). 2022;52:101878.
66. Li X, etal. Microbiological concordance in the management of
diabetic foot ulcer infections with osteomyelitis, on the basis of
cultures of different specimens at a diabetic foot center in China.
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2021;14:1493–503.
67. Lipsky BA.Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin
Infect Dis. 2004;39(Suppl 2):S104–14.
68. Lipsky BA, etal. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections:
comparison of two parenteral-to-oral regimens. Clin Infect Dis.
1997;24(4):643–8.
69. Lipsky BA, Pecoraro RE, Wheat LJ.The diabetic foot. Soft tissue
and bone infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 1990;4(3):409–32.
70. Slater RA, etal. Swab cultures accurately identify bacterial pathogens in diabetic foot wounds not involving bone. Diabet Med.
2004;21(7):705–9.
71. Pellizzer G, etal. Deep tissue biopsy vs. supercial swab culture
monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening
diabetic foot infection. Diabet Med. 2001;18(10):822–7.
72. Manas AB, etal. Admission time deep swab specimens compared
with surgical bone sampling in hospitalized individuals with diabetic foot osteomyelitis and soft tissue infection. Int J Low Extrem
Wounds. 2021;20(4):300–8.
73. Sapico FL, etal. Quantitative aerobic and anaerobic bacteriology
of infected diabetic feet. J Clin Microbiol. 1980;12(3):413–20.
74. Tan JS, etal. Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections
reduce the need for above-ankle amputation? Clin Infect Dis.
1996;23(2):286–91.
75. van Baal JG.Surgical treatment of the infected diabetic foot. Clin
Infect Dis. 2004;39(Suppl 2):S123–8.
76. McIntyre KE Jr, et al. Guillotine amputation in the treatment
of nonsalvageable lower-extremity infections. Arch Surg.
1984;119(4):450–3.
77. Chantelau E, etal. Antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated neuropathic forefoot ulcers in diabetes: a controlled trial. Diabet Med.
1996;13(2):156–9.
78. Jones EW, Edwards R, Finch R, Jaffcoate WJ.A microbiologic
study of diabetic foot lesions. Diab Med. 1984;2:213–5.
79. Dumville JC, etal. Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot
ulcers in people with diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2017;6(6):CD011038.
80. Fox HR, Karchmer AW.Management of diabetic foot infections,
including the use of home intravenous antibiotic therapy. Clin
Podiatr Med Surg. 1996;13(4):671–82.
81. Lipsky BA. Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot
infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999;26(3–4):267–76.
82. Corey GR, etal. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute
bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2180–90.
83. O’Riordan W, et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and
skin-structure infections. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(6):528–38.
84. Pullman J, et al. Efcacy and safety of delaoxacin compared
with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin
structure infections: a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. J
Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(12):3471–80.
85. Seltzer E, etal. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus standard-of-care
antimicrobial regimens for treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(10):1298–303.
86. Lipsky BA, Itani K, Norden C.Treating foot infections in diabetic
patients: a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of linezolid
versus ampicillin-sulbactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clin Infect
Dis. 2004;38(1):17–24.
87. Stevens DL, etal. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin
Infect Dis. 2002;34(11):1481–90.
88. Arbeit RD, etal. The safety and efcacy of daptomycin for the
treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin
Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1673–81.
89. Lipsky BA, Stoutenburgh U. Daptomycin for treating infected
diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled
trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic
penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections. J
Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(2):240–5.
90. Stryjewski ME, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for
the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis.
2008;46(11):1683–93.
91. Lipsky BA, etal. Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of diabetic foot
infections: the CAPTURE study experience. Diabetes Metab Res
Rev. 2015;31(4):395–401.
92. Selva Olid A, etal. Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot
infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD009061.
93. Crouzet J, etal. Diabetic foot infection: a critical review of recent
randomized clinical trials on antibiotic therapy. Int J Infect Dis.
2011;15(9):e601–10.
94. Caputo GM, etal. Assessment and management of foot disease
in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(13):854–60.
95. Lipsky BA. Empirical therapy for diabetic foot infections: are
there clinical clues to guide antibiotic selection? Clin Microbiol
Infect. 2007;13(4):351–3.
96. Tamma PD, Aitken S, Bonomo RA, Mathers AJ, van Duin D,
Clancy CJ.Infectious Diseases Society of America antimicrobialresistant treatment guidance: gram-negative bacterial infections.
Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad428.
97. Beam T, Gutierrez I, Powell S, etal. Prospective study of the efcacy and safety of oral and intravenous ciprooxacin in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11(Suppl
5):S1163.
98. Hughes CE, et al. Treatment and long-term follow-up of foot
infections in patients with diabetes or ischemia: a randomized,
prospective, double-blind comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizoxime. Clin Ther. 1987;10 Suppl A:36–49.
99. Peterson LR, etal. Therapy of lower extremity infections with ciprooxacin in patients with diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular
disease, or both. Am J Med. 1989;86(6 Pt 2):801–8.
100. Lipsky BA, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam
for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet.
2005;366(9498):1695–703.
101. Lipsky BA, etal. Treating diabetic foot infections with sequential intravenous to oral moxioxacin compared with piperacillintazobactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. J Antimicrob Chemother.
2007;60(2):370–6.
102. Vick-Fragoso R, etal. Efcacy and safety of sequential intravenous/oral moxioxacin vs intravenous/oral amoxicillin/clavulanate for complicated skin and skin structure infections. Infection.
2009;37(5):407–17.
103. Schaper NC, etal. Efcacy and safety of IV/PO moxioxacin and
IV piperacillin/tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of diabetic foot infections: results of the
RELIEF study. Infection. 2013;41(1):175–86.
104. Xu ZR, etal. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections in China: a phase 3, multicentre, randomized,
double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. J Antimicrob
Chemother. 2016;71(6):1688–96.
105. Vardakas KZ, Horianopoulou M, Falagas ME.Factors associated
with treatment failure in patients with diabetic foot infections: an
analysis of data from randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res
Clin Pract. 2008;80(3):344–51.

378
https://t.me/med1917
M. T. LaSalvia and A. W. Karchmer
106. Lauf L, etal. Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem
in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomyelitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78(4):469–80.
107. Cooper G, Platt R. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in
diabetic patients. Endocarditis and mortality. Am J Med.
1982;73(5):658–62.
108. Senneville E, et al. Outcome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis
treated nonsurgically: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care.
2008;31(4):637–42.
109. Bamberger DM, Daus GP, Gerding DN. Osteomyelitis in the
feet of diabetic patients. Long-term results, prognostic factors,
and the role of antimicrobial and surgical therapy. Am J Med.
1987;83(4):653–60.
110. Game FL, Jeffcoate WJ. Primarily non-surgical management of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes. Diabetologia.
2008;51(6):962–7.
111. Senneville E, et al. Rifampicin-ooxacin oral regimen for the
treatment of mild to moderate diabetic foot osteomyelitis. J
Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48(6):927–30.
112. Ha Van G, et al. Treatment of osteomyelitis in the diabetic
foot. Contribution of conservative surgery. Diabetes Care.
1996;19(11):1257–60.
113. Lesens O, etal. Staphylococcus aureus-related diabetic osteomyelitis: medical or surgical management? A French and Spanish retrospective cohort. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2015;14(3):284–90.
114. Lazaro-Martinez JL, Aragon-Sanchez J, Garcia-Morales
E. Antibiotics versus conservative surgery for treating diabetic
foot osteomyelitis: a randomized comparative trial. Diabetes Care.
2014;37(3):789–95.
115. Berendt AR, etal. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report
on diagnosis and a systematic review of treatment. Diabetes Metab
Res Rev. 2008;24(Suppl 1):S145–61.
116. Truong DH, etal. Meta-analysis: outcomes of surgical and medical management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Open Forum Infect
Dis. 2022;9(9):ofac407.
117. Li HK, etal. Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint
infection. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):425–36.
118. Lipsky BA.Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Clin
Infect Dis. 1997;25(6):1318–26.
119. Kowalski TJ, et al. The effect of residual osteomyelitis at the
resection margin in patients with surgically treated diabetic foot
infection. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011;50(2):171–5.
120. Atway S, et al. Rate of residual osteomyelitis after partial foot
amputation in diabetic patients: a standardized method for evaluating bone margins with intraoperative culture. J Foot Ankle Surg.
2012;51(6):749–52.
121. Weng B, et al. Evaluating predictive value of surgical resected
proximal bone margins in diabetic foot osteomyelitis with clinical
outcomes at 1 year. Open forum. Infect Dis. 2023;10(1):ofac689.
122. Gariani K, etal. Three weeks versus six weeks of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a prospective, randomized,
noninferiority pilot trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1539–45.
123. American Diabetes Association. Consensus development conference of diabetic foot wound care. Diab Care. 1999;22:1354–60.
124. Eneroth M, van Houtum WH. The value of debridement and
vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy in diabetic foot ulcers.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(Suppl 1):S76–80.
125. Saluja S, etal. Foot ulceration and its association with mortality in
diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2020;37(2):211–8.
126. Petersen BJ, etal. Higher rates of all-cause mortality and resource
utilization during episodes-of-care for diabetic foot ulceration.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;184:109182.
127. Branch-Elliman W, etal. Association between diabetic foot infection wound culture positivity and 1-year admission for invasive
infection: a multicenter cohort study. Open Forum Infect Dis.
2021;8(7):ofab172.
128. Ndosi M, et al. Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer:
a 12-month prospective observational study. Diabet Med.
2018;35(1):78–88.

Preparation oftheWound Bed
https://t.me/med1917
oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
KevinRiemer andKevinBuczkowski
21
Abstract
One of the unfortunate results of diabetes is the formation
of diabetic ulcers. These typically do not heal well and
form chronic wounds which, despite recent advanced
therapies, still fail to heal. This results in increased risk
for infection, thus resulting in high amputation rates.
Many factors contribute to poor healing. Hyperglycemia
induces the majority of micro- and macrovascular complications associated with impaired wound healing.
Wound bed preparation (WBP) is an essential step of diabetic wound management in order to accelerate healing
and/or facilitate the effectiveness of other treatment
modalities. The main purpose of WBP is to remove the
barriers that impair wound healing, including the presence of necrotic tissue, senescent cells, altered extracellular matrix, hypoxia, high bacterial burden, and
inammatory enzymes within the wound bed. There are
several steps for achieving WBP, including debridement.
We provide an overview of the current concepts of WBP
in the context of diabetic ulcers.
Abbreviations
CSS Clinical signs and symptoms
DFUs Diabetic foot ulcers
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
ECM Extracellular matrix
EGF Epithelial growth factor
EPCs Bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells
K. Riemer (*)
Division of Podiatric Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
e-mail: kriemer@bidmc.harvard.edu
K. Buczkowski
Division of Podiatric Surgery, Signature Healthcare,
Brockton, MA, USA
e-mail: kbuczkow@bidmc.harvard.edu
FDA Food and Drug Administration
HBOT Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
HBOT Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
HGF Hepatocyte growth factor
HIF-1α Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha
LFUD Lower-frequency ultrasonic debridement
M1 Macrophage proinammatory phenotype
M2 Macrophage anti-inammatory and prohealing
phenotype
MDT Maggot debridement therapy
MMP-9 Metalloproteinase-9
MSC Mesenchymal stem cells
PDGF-ββ Platelet-derived growth factor-ββ
rhEGF Human recombinant epidermal growth factor
TGF-β Transforming growth factor-β
TIME Tissue (Necrotic), Infection/Inammation,
Moisture balance, healing of Edge of wound
VEGF Vascular endothelium growth factor
WBP Wound bed preparation
Introduction
Healing of diabetic wounds is complex and typically does
not occur in a normal standard fashion compared to individuals without diabetes. This is usually attributed to the result of
poor glycemic control, underlying neuropathy, peripheral
vascular disease, or poor foot care that results in the formation of a diabetic ulceration [1]. The nonhealing ulcer then
leads to further risk of amputation secondary to the development of infection.. The pathways to diabetic limb amputation
have already been established by the causal pathways
described by Pecoraro and Reiber [2]. Seven component
causes are believed to be involved in the causation of diabetic lower limb amputation: ischemia, neuropathy, trauma,
ulceration, infection, gangrene, and faulty wound healing.
While all these factors are important, the focus of this chapter will target the impaired healing of diabetic ulcerations.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
A. Veves et al. (eds.), The Diabetic Foot, Contemporary Diabetes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55715-6_21
379

380
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
Normal Wound Healing
Normal wound healing is accomplished through overlapping
but distinct biological processes, namely, hemostasis and
inammation, proliferation, and remodeling phases.
Hemostasis begins immediately after any injury affecting
skin integrity [3]. As blood vessels constrict, platelets are
activated by contact with exposed collagen and release their
granules, resulting in further platelet activation and aggregation. In conjunction with activation of the coagulation cascade, this results in deposition of a provisional brin matrix
within the wound [4].
As a result of platelet activation during hemostasis, a
large number of cytokines, including transforming growth
factor-β (TGF-β) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF),
are secreted to promote chemotaxis of neutrophils and macrophages leading to the initiation of the inammatory phase
[5]. Neutrophils are among the rst cells to appear acutely.
Experimental data suggests wound healing may progress in
the absence of neutrophils, unlike macrophages, which have
been found to be critical to this phase and overall wound
healing [5]. Macrophages, derived from activated monocytes, aid in phagocytosis and produce more cytokines and
growth factors that promote broblast proliferation, angiogenesis, and keratinocyte migration. Dysregulated wound
macrophage function has been associated with impaired
wound healing in diabetic wounds [6].
Within 2–3days of the initial injury, an ample number of
broblasts migrate to the wound and signal the proliferative
phase lasting up to 3 weeks in a healing cutaneous wound.
Fibroblasts play a key role in this phase by production of disorganized collagen, high in immature type III collagen, deposited into this provisional matrix [7]. Fibroblasts recruited to
the wound may transform to become myobroblasts under the
inuence of several cytokines leading to increased collagen
production and eventual wound contraction [8]. Numerous
signaling pathways were found to be implicated in modulating
the wound healing process including but not limited to angiotensin II and TGF-β through the canonical and noncanonical
signaling pathways, among others [9].
During the nal remodeling phase of wound healing,
granulation tissue is replaced by a permanent scar. Collagen
production continues actively for 4–5 weeks followed by
replacement of type III reticular collagen with type I brillar
collagen over the following year [10]. Zinc-dependent endopeptidases, known as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)
secreted by epidermal cells, play a central role in tissue
remodeling [11]. Tensile strength of the wound site continues to increase with increasing collagen production from 3%
on week 1 and 20% after 3weeks. At 3months post injury,
tensile strength peaks at 80% of uninjured skin, but not fully
reaching 100% [12, 13].
Impaired Wound Healing inDiabetes
However, this carefully coordinated cascade of events is disrupted in diabetic wound healing. The resulting consequence
is a vicious cycle of impaired wound healing; therefore, this
sequence is not applicable to these chronic wounds [14]. It
has been well documented that diabetic ulcers and other
types of chronic wounds do not follow an orderly and reliable progression of wound healing [15, 16]. Diabetic ulcerations remain in a chronic pro-inammatory state that is
characterized by increased expression of inammatory
cytokines [17].
The healing process in diabetes is mainly characterized
by the state of chronic inammatory conditions, disrupted
angiogenesis, reduction of endothelial progenitor cells, and
an imbalance in extracellular matrix regulation. As observed
in wound repair, neutrophils and macrophages promptly
inltrate the area of the lesion driven by chemotactic chemokines that are particularly elevated in diabetes [18].
Inltrating cells release inammatory cytokines such as
interleukin 1β (IL-1β) and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα)
whose levels are not only elevated not only during the initial
inammatory acute repair phase but remain at high concentrations in the wound area for longer time. This indicates the
maintenance of a prolonged inammatory response [19]. In
diabetes, the production of several growth factors involved in
initiating and sustaining the healing process is compromised.
For instance, reduced levels of insulin-like growth factor-1
(IGF-1) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) have
been reported in the wound tissue in both diabetic animals
and humans. IGF-1 is implied in cell granulation and wound
reepithelization [20], while TGF-β recruits immune cells,
keratinocytes, broblasts, and vascular cells and is involved
in angiogenesis and formation of the ECM [21]. Transforming
growth factor-β (TGF-β) is a key factor throughout the
wound healing process. However, cells in chronic wounds
may not appropriately respond to TGF-β [22]. In diabetes,
the balance between the promotion of new vessel formation
and their maturation is disturbed. Angiogenesis is dysfunctional in endothelial cells exposed to elevated glucose levels,
and in the wound area, capillary density is poor and insufcient. Hyperglycemia affects hypoxia-inducible factor
1-alpha (HIF-1α) stability and activation, and consequently
it suppresses HIF-1α target genes such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [23]. In diabetes animal models,
macrophages, which are the main source of VEGF, exhibit
impaired phagocytic activity and altered phenotype, resulting in failure of tissue repair [24]. Accordingly, in a mice
wound model, VEGF-A mRNA and protein levels were signicantly reduced compared to control mice. Treatment with
VEGF-A caused accelerated wound closure, although this
was characterized by early leaky and malformed vasculature

21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
381
and complicated by edema until VEGF-A treatment was
ceased [25]. In this context, dysregulated production of both
pro-angiogenic and vascular maturation factors leads to a
reduced population of endothelial progenitor cells in the
bone marrow [26], thus causing modications in angiogenic
sprouting and an aberrant vascular architecture in diabetic
wounds [27].
The maturation phase of wound healing appears to be
impaired in diabetes too. The production of factors leading to
vascular mature phenotype (including angiopoietin (ANG) 1
and 2, PDGF) is compromised, and topical application of
ANG1 and PDGF increased wound healing in a mouse
model of diabetes induced by streptozotocin or in db/db
mice, respectively [28, 29].
Finally, an impairment in the regulation of ECM, whose
buildup is modulated by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)
and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) is
observed in diabetes. Higher MMP levels have been
reported in diabetic wounds, due to high glucose that may
directly induce the production of MMPs and the reduction
of TIMPs, thus contributing to disruption of the healing
process [30]. MMPs are involved in various stages of
wound healing, such as cell migration through the degraded
ECM, leukocyte invasion, processing of multiple cytokines,
and growth factors involved in the healing process. The balance between MMPs and TIMPs is essential to avoid the
disruption of the scaffolding structures necessary for proper
wound healing [31]. Macrophages also show a decrease in
the release of cytokines and other mediators. Increasing
serum levels of inammatory cytokines, metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), and the inappropriate response to several
growth factors may be responsible for diabetic ulcers’ failure to heal [32]. Studies have found that the phenotypic
transition of macrophages from M1 (pro-inammatory) to
M2 (pro-remodeling) in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) wound
tissue is defective, and the recruitment of immune neutrophils and macrophages is reduced, which delays the time of
wound healing. Delay in healing potentiates the infection
risk of the diabetic foot [33, 34].
At the local level, a typical feature of chronic wounds and
diabetic ulcers is their propensity to become highly colonized with bacteria which interferes with wound healing.
Even during the normal process of wound healing, complications from infection can occur [35, 36]. Infection complicates nearly 50% of diabetic ulcers and is associated with
signicant morbidity and may lead to amputation [37].
Bacteria can thrive within the wound as multilayered microbial colonies or biolm, surrounded by a protective coat of
polysaccharides. Biolm is resistant to antimicrobials and
contributes to persistent infection and delayed wound healing [38, 39]. A specic microbiome might be associated with
diabetic wounds and that could impact the capacity to heal
and effectively manage these ulcers [35–37, 39].
Problems with blood ow as seen with peripheral vascular disease plays an essential role in the rapid spread of infection in diabetic ulcers. Together with hyperglycemia and
other metabolic effects of diabetes, local tissue hypoxia
adversely affects neutrophil and macrophage function leading to impaired healing [40]. In basic terms, diminished
blood ow due to atherosclerosis or basement membrane
thickening of blood vessels leads to decreased blood ow
and oxygenation to the wound. Hyperglycemia decreases the
function of red blood cells that carry nutrients to the tissue.
This lowers the efciency of the white blood cells that ght
infection. Without sufcient nutrients and oxygen, a wound
heals slowly [41].
Wound Bed Preparation andDebridement
Dr. Frederick Treves revolutionized the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) when he established three important
principles in DFU treatment, which continue to be the foundation of modern-day care: sharp debridement, off-loading,
and diabetic foot education [42].
Schultz et al. rst published the concept of wound bed
preparation in 2003, which is a structured framework for use
in the management of wounds. The TIME acronym (Tissue,
Inammation/infection, Moisture balance, Epithelial edge
advancement), published the following year, describes four
aspects of wound bed preparation that need to be systematically addressed in order for wound healing to take place.
This acronym has since been widely accepted in clinical
practice in both the assessment and management of chronic
wounds.
The TIME concept (see Fig.21.1):
Tissue: This involves assessing for the presence of nonviable
or necrotic tissue, callus, foreign bodies, and exudate,
biolm, or slough. Intervention consists of debridement,
for which there is a wide range of techniques available.
Infection/inammation: This involves assessing the etiology
of the wound and treating infection or inammation unre-
lated to infection. Intervention includes topical antimicro-
bials and systemic antibiotics.
Moisture balance: This involves the assessment and manage-
ment of wound uid/exudate.
Epithelial edge advancement: This involves the assessment
and management of non-advancing or undermining
wound edges and the condition of the surrounding skin
[14, 43].
The concept of WBP was initially brought to the attention of
clinicians by Falanga and colleagues. The concept of WBP has
become signied by most wound care experts as being crucial
in terms of how chronic wounds are treated. The whole WBP

382
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
Fig. 21.1 Summary of TIME
Summary of T.I.M.E.
Clinical Need Clinical Action
T Tissue Management Wound bed preparation to remove necrotic,
I Control of infection and
inflammation
M Moisture balance Removal of excess wound exudate and
E Epithelial edge
advancement
paradigm described ten approaches of chronic wound management, which include treatment of the causative factors, identifying patients’ concerns, determining wound heal ability status,
monitoring wound history and performing clinical examination, debriding whenever appropriate with adequate pain control, treating infected/inamed wound, managing moisture
balance, evaluating rate of healing, giving consideration to
active modalities for stalled but healable wound, and lastly providing organizational support [44]. Chronic wounds are likely
required to have repeated debridement as part of wound management because devitalized tissue tends to resurface due to the
underlying causative factors. As a result, selection of appropriate debridement procedures with adequate pain control was
recommended for effective chronic wound treatment.
Types ofDebridement
Autolytic Debridement
This is a process by which the body uses its own endogenous proteolytic enzyme to shed devitalized tissue to selectively liquefy and separate nonviable tissue from healthy
tissues [45, 46]. In general, this type of debridement method
is relatively slower, and the time taken to remove devitalized tissue using this method is dependent upon wound size
and amount of dead tissue. More frequent clinical visits are
generally required.
Enzymatic Debridement
This is a method of using chemical agents to break down
devitalized tissue. The chemical agents contain exogenous
non-viable tissue and foreign material
Methods to remove infection and prevent
inflammation
provide a controlled moist environment for
optimal healing
Optimal environment for cell migration
across the wound/ulcer
proteolytic enzymes that soften the necrotic tissue and are
then removed during wound cleansing. It is relatively faster
than autolytic debridement. Enzymatic debridement has
been reported as one of the most cost-effective debridement
methods, is shorter in duration, and requires fewer clinical
visits compared to other debridement types [47]. This
method uses an exogenous proteolytic enzyme, collagenase, derived from Clostridium bacteria. Collagenase
digests the collagen in the necrotic tissue allowing it to
detach from viable tissue [48].
Surgical Debridement
Widely considered the gold standard of wound debridement,
this is conducted in a sterile environment, almost always in
an operating room by a surgeon [49]. The outcomes are generally immediate and rapid; however, following this type of
debridement, pain may be present and healthy tissue might
be sacriced along with nonviable tissues.
Biological Debridement
This form of debridement usually is known as maggot
debridement therapy (MDT) or larval therapy. It involves
using sterile larvae of the green bottle y, Lucilia sericata,
to eliminate all the dead tissue [50]. This therapy’s effectiveness lies in the secretion by the maggot, which contains
antibacterial and chemical secretion that can break down
dead tissue [51]. Five systemic reviews conducted between
January 1960 and June 2010 consistently showed that
chronic wounds treated with MDT remove all devitalized
tissue faster than hydrogels [52].

21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
383
Mechanical Debridement
The earlier method of mechanical debridement involved
using dry or wet-to-dry gauze or impregnated gauze to rip off
dead tissue. Moistened gauze is applied on a sloughy wound
bed and left to dry. Once removed, this pulls off nonviable
tissue(s). However, due to pain experienced by the patient,
new advanced debridement methods have emerged, such as
monolament pads, hydro-surgery, and low-frequency ultrasonic debridement [53].
Hydro-surgery Debridement
Hydro-surgery works based on the principle of the Venturi
effect. Sterile saline is forcibly projected through a tiny jet
nozzle, creating a localized vacuum. This concurrently
grasps, cuts, and removes dead tissue and debris from the
wound. This method is usually quick and effective. A 2021
systemic review on the effect of hydro-surgery found that
this system was 8.87min faster compared to conventional
sharp debridement and fewer debridements were required in
the hydro-surgery group [54].
Ultrasonic Debridement
The removal of dead tissue was performed using lowfrequency ultrasonic waves ranging between 20 and 40kHz
to eliminate devitalized soft tissue by the cavitation effect.
Two systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of
lower-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) on patients
with diabetic foot ulcer and chronic ulcers. Ultrasonic
debridement was compared to nonsurgical sharp debridement and concluded no signicant difference in wound healing [55]. However, Chang etal. reported that LFUD showed
good outcomes under a low-frequency spectrum between 20
and 34kHz, with a treatment frequency of three times per
week [56]. Lastly, there is evidence that direct contact
devices did have a role in decreasing bacterial load and biolm [57].
Role ofDebridement
Debridement is an important part of WBP.However, debridement alone is not enough to sustain healing in chronic
wounds/ulcers. In accordance with the TIME (necrotic
Tissue, Infection/Inammation, Moisture balance, healing of
Edge of wound) principles, debridement can help remove
necrotic burden of abnormal or senescent cells and brous
tissue (eschar), control inammation or infection, decrease
excess moisture, and stimulate a non-advancing wound edge
[58, 59]. By removing nonviable tissue, appropriate debridement of diabetic ulcers serves to correct several cellular
(altered resident cells) and molecular (matrix material,
growth factors, MMPs, and enzymes) abnormalities [60].
One hypothesis is that debridement resets the course toward
restoring normal wound healing sequence [61] (Fig.21.2).
In the early stages of wound healing, debridement occurs
autolytically through the action of neutrophil-derived
enzymes. Protease inhibitors are also released by wound
cells to restrict protease’s action to the wound bed and minimize damage to intact tissue at the wound edges. Although
ab
Fig. 21.2 (a) Ulcer surrounded by macerated tissue, nonviable tissue of wound bed. (b) Three weeks after managing exudate and weekly
sharp debridement

384
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
debridement may occur naturally, this autolytic debridement
can become slow or stalled. Active debridement is almost
always required in the management of diabetic ulcers
[62, 63]. Early debridement can accelerate the healing, but
routine debridement is often needed to keep the wound in an
active healing state [64]. Maintenance debridement between
surgical interventions and sharp debridement may be conducted by several methods such as mechanical, autolytic,
chemical, or biological [59]. It is important to mention that
the relative efcacy of these debridement methods in diabetic ulcer management is not well established [65].
Eect ofDebridement onWound Cells
andWound Environment
The goal of debridement is to provide enhanced efcacy of
other therapies such as growth factors, bioengineered skin,
cell-based therapies, or other advanced therapies. It functions to convert the chronic wound into an acute wound,
thereby also removing tissue(s) that can contribute to infection. Debridement reduces devitalized necrotic tissue which
acts as a nidus for bacterial contamination. The removal of
devitalized tissue thereby reduces bacterial load in the wound
bed which helps to accelerate the wound healing process.
Removal of necrotic, dead tissue also helps to restore perfusion to the wound site which improves oxygen delivery to the
wound bed. An adequate supply of oxygen is vital for the
healing process, and therefore, debridement helps to improve
healing through restoration of local blood supply. Bacteria
compete with normal tissue for the supply of nutrients and
energy. This in turn compromises the migration of broblasts
into the extracellular matrix which is essential for wound
healing to occur. A clean, debrided wound can recruit broblasts to the wound site which then lays down collagen
brils. This helps to ll in the epithelial defect and promote
contraction of the wound edges [66].
In chronic wounds, debridement must be done without
injuring viable tissue. Efforts should be made to keep healthy
cells within the wound that are biologically capable of
responding to therapies [63]. In current practice, deciding
when a wound bed is adequately prepared is problematic, if
not impossible. The specialty of wound care is developed
without the benet of an established diagnostic testing for
inammation or bacterial burden [67, 68]. Today, clinicians
rely on clinical signs and symptoms (CSS) to diagnose
excessive inammation and elevated bacterial levels in nonhealing wounds; however, CSS are unreliable [69]. In a large
multicenter clinical trial, the average sensitivity of CSS in
detecting bacteria was only 15% [70]. Recent evidence suggests that two novel point-of-care diagnostic tests may ll
the unmet need for wound diagnostics [71–73].
The excessive inammatory protease activity (EPA) test
provides a qualitative assessment of human inammatory
protease activity in the ulcer. Proteases break down damaged ECM proteins and foreign material so that new tissue
can form and wound closure can occur in an orderly fashion, but these levels can be elevated. A positive EPA indicates elevated levels of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) 2,
8, and 9 and human neutrophil-derived elastase (HNE). A
multicenter clinical trial evaluating the point-of care test
demonstrated that 90% of wounds with EPA failed to progress toward healing (median HNE 2.6mU/110 μL (range
0–108) and median total MMP 12.6 U/110 μL (range
0–476)) [72]. In addition, several studies have found elevated inammatory protease activity associated with nonhealing chronic wounds. This was based upon a weighted
average of eight studies including 503 patients demonstrating EPA in 22% of nonhealing chronic wounds [74].
Conversely, low protease activity is found in wounds that
are healing normally or found in chronic wounds where the
delayed wound healing is not caused by excessive MMP
and HNE activity. Studies have shown that wound bed
preparation that does not reduce elevated protease levels
was associated with skin graft failure. In contrast, wounds
with low protease activity prior to grafting had 85–100%
successful skin graft take [75, 76].
Bacterial protease activity (BPA) test provides a qualitative assessment of bacterial protease activity from the most
common bacteria in chronic wounds (Staphylococcus aureus,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, and
Enterococcus faecalis). This detects elevated bacterial prote-
ases called virulence factors that correlate with bacterial
pathogenicity. A multicenter clinical trial showed elevated
BPA was associated with delayed wound healing. In addition, the detection of increased BPA permitted the identication of pathogenic bacteria in the wound prior to the onset of
clinical signs and symptoms [73]. Ideally, clinicians would
identify and treat pathogenic bacteria in the wound earlier
prior to the onset of clinical signs of infection.
Other Modalities forWound Healing
BeyondWBP
Despite the introduction of advanced wound dressings, negative pressure wound therapy, cellular- and/or tissue-based
products, and oxygen therapies, less than half of wounds

21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
385
heal after 12weeks of treatment [77]. There are additional
approaches for WBP to improve clinical outcomes in the
treatment of diabetic ulcers, including ofoading of the
ulcer, management of edema and exudate, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and advanced biological and tissue engineering
therapies.
Various wound dressings have been developed based on
the hypothesis that reepithelization increases when wounds
are kept moist. However, appropriate moist wound healing is
difcult to achieve in diabetic ulcers because a delicate balance is required to avoid maceration of tissues. Maintaining
an optimal moist wound bed with wound dressings is ideal to
promote conditions that prevent eschar formation and facilitate cell migration within the wound. Unfortunately, current
evidence is lacking among which wound dressings have
improved healing outcomes in diabetic foot ulcers [78].
Controlling edema and managing exudate are also critical in
the management of diabetic ulcers. Minimizing edema helps
reduce wound exudate, which has been shown to be harmful
for the cells around the wound and may enhance bacterial
colonization [19].
Pressure off-loading is very important to remove a source
of repetitive pressure and constant trauma and is essential in
diabetic wound healing. Although there are many types of
pressure-relieving devices, the total contact cast is considered by many to be the best method for off-loading and treating diabetic patients with neuropathic ulcers [79]. However,
other options for off-loading have been developed and are
utilized.
Another common issue in diabetic ulcers is tissue
hypoxia. Some studies suggest that hyperbaric oxygen
therapy (HBOT), by exposure to 100% oxygen pressure at
1–3 atmosphere absolute (ATA), is strongly effective in
reducing the rate of major amputations in patients with
diabetic foot ulcers [80, 81]. HBOT promotes neutrophilmediated bacterial killing ability in hypoxic tissue. HBOT
is thought to prevent the release of proteases and free radicals in certain injuries, thereby decreasing vasoconstriction, edema, and cellular damage [82]. Topical oxygen
therapies are also being utilized with recent supportive
evidence for use as an adjunct to standard wound care to
promote wound healing [83].
Utilizing growth factors can have effects on cell regeneration, stimulation of proliferation, migration of keratinocytes, formation of granulation tissues, and promotion of
broblast motility for wound healing. There are studies that
support the use of human recombinant epidermal growth
factor (rhEGF) in treating diabetic ulcers with increased
rates of wound healing [84]. However, this growth factor is
not universally available. In the USA, platelet-derived
growth factor-ββ (PDGF-ββ) is the only Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)-approved topically applied recombinant growth factor for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers
[85]. Evidence shows that extensive debridement of diabetic
ulcers is synergistic with the application of PDGF-ββ [62].
VEGF acts on angiogenesis and tissue granulation during
the early stage of healing. Thus, in chronic lesions that are
characterized by low VEGF, a possible therapeutic treatment modality is externally administered to achieve wound
healing [3]. Various topical formulations containing VEGF
are under development with promising results. Although not
commercially available, a recent animal model showed
promise in wound healing using a mixture of mesoglycan
and VEGF [86].
Bioengineered skin substitutes have been developed for
the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. These skin substitute constructs can be a combination of complex matrix
products and cells, while others are simply acellular [87]. A
Cochrane systematic review provided evidence that some
skin substitutes accelerate ulcer healing in conjunction with
standard care for diabetic foot ulcers [88].
Placental membranes contain epithelial cells, neonatal
broblasts, and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), promoting
wound healing [89]. MSCs produce factors that stimulate
migration and proliferation of the main cell types in the
wound healing process. MSCs also release hepatocyte
growth factor (HGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor
(VEGF) to stimulate vascular network formation and provide anti-scarring properties [90]. Studies have shown that
MSCs improve tissue repair and skin regeneration and play a
critical role in the major wound healing phases. Additionally,
MSCs can differentiate into multiple cell types and produce
pro-regenerative cytokines. Therefore, MSC-based skin substitutes provide an alternative option to conventional treatments for wound healing [91].
The future frontier of wound healing is moving toward
the combination of growth factors embedded onto biological
scaffolds. Emerging skin and tissue regeneration techniques
will use scaffolds activated with growth factors, bioactive
molecules, and genetically modied cells to make a more
complex wound healing technology possible. They will
allow the design of personalized therapy. Emergent technologies for scaffold manufacturing include electrospinning and
3D bioprinting, both of which are undergoing development
[92]. It is not unimaginable that 1day replacement tissues
and even organs will be readily available. However, until that
threshold is crossed, one treating diabetic wounds must still
understand the nuances and process of WBP.

386
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
References
1. Singer AJ, Tassiopoulos A, Kirsner RS. Evaluation and management of lower-extremity ulcers. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(3):302–3.
2. Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM.Pathways to diabetic limb
amputation. Basis for prevention. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:513–21.
3. Barrientos S, Stojadinovic O, Golinko MS, Brem H, Tomic-Canic
M.Growth factors and cytokines in wound healing. Wound Repair
Regen. 2008;16(05):585–601.
4. Furie B, Furie BC.Mechanisms of thrombus formation. N Engl J
Med. 2008;359(09):938–49.
5. Bevilacqua MP, Pober JS, Wheeler ME, Cotran RS, Gimbrone
MA Jr. Interleukin 1 acts on cultured human vascular endothelium to increase the adhesion of polymorphonuclear leukocytes, monocytes, and related leukocyte cell lines. J Clin Invest.
1985;76(05):2003–11.
6. Barman PK, Koh TJ.Macrophage dysregulation and impaired skin
wound healing in diabetes. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:528.
7. Landén NX, Li D, Ståhle M.Transition from inammation to proliferation: a critical step during wound healing. Cell Mol Life Sci.
2016;73(20):3861–85.
8. Finnson KW, McLean S, Di Guglielmo GM, Philip A.Dynamics
of transforming growth factor beta signaling in wound healing and
scarring. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013;2(05):195–214.
9. Finnson KW, Almadani Y, Philip A.Non-canonical (non-SMAD2/3)
TGF-β signaling in brosis: mechanisms and targets. Semin Cell
Dev Biol. 2020;101:115–22.
10. Carlson MA, Longaker MT. The broblast-populated collagen
matrix as a model of wound healing: a review of the evidence.
Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(02):134–47.
11. Broughton G II, Janis JE, Attinger CE.Wound healing: an overview. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):1e-S–32e-S.
12. Lindstedt E, Sandblom P. Wound healing in man: tensile
strength of healing wounds in some patient groups. Ann Surg.
1975;181(06):842–6.
13. Levenson SM, Geever EF, Crowley LV, Oates JF III, Berard
CW, Rosen H. The healing of rat skin wounds. Ann Surg.
1965;161(02):293–308.
14. Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Harding
K, etal. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound
management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003;11(Suppl. 1):S1–28.
15. Baltzis D, Eleftheriadou I, Veves A.Pathogenesis and treatment of
impaired wound healing in diabetes mellitus: new insights. Adv
Ther. 2014;31:817–36.
16. Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis of wound
healing in diabetes. J Clin Invest. 2007;117(5):1219–22.
17. Zubair M, Ahmad J.Role of growth factors and cytokines in diabetic foot ulcer healing: a detailed review. Rev Endocr Metab
Disord. 2019;20(2):207–17.
18. Wetzler C, Kampfer H, Stallmeyer B, Pfeilschifter J, Frank S.Large
and sustained induction of chemokines during impaired wound
healing in the genetically diabetic mouse: prolonged persistence
of neutrophils and macrophages during the late phase of repair. J
Invest Dermatol. 2000;115:245–53.
19. Falanga V. The chronic wound: impaired healing and solutions
in the context of wound bed preparation. Blood Cells Mol Dis.
2004;32(1):88–94.
20. Brown DL, Kane CD, Chernausek SD, Greenhalgh DG.Differential
expression and localization of insulin-like growth factors I and II in
cutaneous wounds of diabetic and nondiabetic mice. Am J Pathol.
1997;151:715–24.
21. Roberts AB. Transforming growth factor-beta: activity and efcacy in animal models of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen.
1995;3:408–18.
22. Peplow PV, Baxter GD. Gene expression and release of growth
factors during delayed wound healing: a review of studies in
diabetic animals and possible combined laser phototherapy and
growth factor treatment to enhance healing. Photomed Laser Surg.
2012;30(11):617–36.
23. Semenza GL. HIF-1: mediator of physiological and pathophysiological responses to hypoxia. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88:1474–80.
24. Khanna S, Biswas S, Shang Y, Collard E, Azad A, Kauh C, Bhasker
V, Gordillo GM, Sen CK, Roy S.Macrophage dysfunction impairs
resolution of inammation in the wounds of diabetic mice. PLoS
One. 2010;5:e9539.
25. Galiano RD, Tepper OM, Pelo CR, Bhatt KA, Callaghan M,
Bastidas N, Bunting S, Steinmetz HG, Gurtner GC. Topical vascular endothelial growth factor accelerates diabetic wound healing
through increased angiogenesis and by mobilizing and recruiting
bone marrow-derived cells. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:1935–47.
26. Drela E, Stankowska K, Kulwas A, Rosc D.Endothelial progenitor
cells in diabetic foot syndrome. Adv Clin Exp Med Off Organ Wroc
Med Univ. 2012;21:249–54.
27. Sangiorgi S, Manelli A, Reguzzoni M, Ronga M, Protasoni M,
Dell’Orbo C.The cutaneous microvascular architecture of human
diabetic toe studied by corrosion casting and scanning electron
microscopy analysis. Anat Record. 2010;293:1639–45.
28. Beer HD, Longaker MT, Werner S.Reduced expression of PDGF
and PDGF receptors during impaired wound healing. J Invest
Dermatol. 1997;109:132–8.
29. Balaji S, Han N, Moles C, Shaaban AF, Bollyky PL, Crombleholme
TM, Keswani SG.Angiopoietin-1 improves endothelial progenitor cell-dependent neovascularization in diabetic wounds. Surgery.
2015;158:846–56.
30. Lobmann R, Zemlin C, Motzkau M, Reschke K, Lehnert
H.Expression of matrix metalloproteinases and growth factors in
diabetic foot wounds treated with a protease absorbent dressing. J
Diabetes Complicat. 2006;20:329–35.
31. Liu Y, Min D, Bolton T, Nubé V, Twigg SM, Yue DK, McLennan
SV. Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 predicts poor wound
healing in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:117–9.
32. Dinh T, Tecilazich F, Kafanas A, Doupis J, Gnardellis C, Leal E,
etal. Mechanisms involved in the development and healing of diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes. 2012;61(11):2937–47.
33. Koh TJ, DiPietro LA.Inammation and wound healing: the role of
the macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2011;13:e23.
34. Wood S, Jayaraman V, Huelsmann EJ, etal. Pro-inammatory chemokine CCL2 (MCP-1) promotes healing in diabetic wounds by
restoring the macrophage response. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91574.
35. Leung KP, D’Arpa P, Seth AK, Geringer MR, Jett M, Xu W,
et al. Dermal wound transcriptomic responses to infection with
Pseudomonas aeruginosa versus Klebsiella pneumoniae in a rabbit
ear wound model. BMC Clin Pathol. 2014;14(1):20.
36. Percival SL, Finnegan S, Donelli G, Vuotto C, Rimmer S, Lipsky
BA.Antiseptics for treating infected wounds: efcacy on biolms
and effect of pH.Crit Rev Microbiol. 2014;42(2):293–309.
37. Davis SC, Martinez L, Kirsner R. The diabetic foot: the importance of biolms and wound bed preparation. Curr Diab Rep.
2006;6(6):439–45.
38. Shahi SK, Kumar A.Isolation and genetic analysis of multidrug
resistant bacteria from diabetic foot ulcers. Front Microbiol.
2015;6(January):1464.
39. Percival SL, McCarty SM, Lipsky B. Biolms and wounds: an
overview of the evidence. Adv Wound Care. 2014;4(7):373–81.
40. Patel V, Chivukula IV, Roy S, Khanna S, He GL, Ojha N, et al.
Oxygen: from the benets of inducing VEGF expression to
managing the risk of hyperbaric stress. Antioxid Redox Signal.
2005;7(9–10):1377–87.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
