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
22 Topical Wound Care Treatment andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
Table 22.1 Evidence-based therapies for diabetic foot ulcers
rhPDGFaBLCC
% healed 50 vs.
35 at
20 weeks
FDA-approved + + + +
Mean time to
dealing, days
Study quality +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +
Additional
RCTs
Effectiveness
data
Reference Wieman
a
Platelet-derived growth factor
b
Bioengineered bilayered living cellular construct (Apligraf)
c
Dermagraft
d
Integra dermal regeneration template (Omnigraft)
e
Small intestine submucosa (Oasis)
f
Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix (PriMatrix)
g
Human acellular dermal wound matrix (GraftJacket)
h
Human variable wound matrix (Grax)
i
Dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (Amniox)
j
Dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (EpiFix)
86 vs. 127 65 vs. 90 Not stated 43 vs. 78 63 vs. 77 43 vs. 57 40 vs. 48 42 vs. 70 36 vs. 70 13 vs. 49
+ + +
+ + +
etal. [55]
b
56 vs.
38 at
12 weeks
Veves
etal. [60]
c
DSS
30 vs.
18 at
12 weeks
Marston
etal. [61]
d
IDRT
51 vs.
32in
16 weeks
Driver
etal. [62]
e
SIS
54 vs.
32 at
12 weeks
Cazzell
etal. [63]
FBDAMfHADWMghVWMhdHACA
60 vs.
36 at
12 weeks
Lantis
etal. [64]
70 vs. 46 at
12weeks
Reyzelman
etal. [65]
62 vs.
21 at
12 weeks
Lavery
etal. [66]
85 vs. 25 at
12 weeks
DiDomenico
etal. [67]
i
397
dHACA
95 vs.
35 at
6 weeks
Zelen
etal. [68]
j
Living Human Cellular-Derived Products
BLCC (Apligraf)
BLCC (Apligrafâ Organogenesis, Canton, MA) is a composite, bilayer skin substitute derived from human neonatal foreskin broblasts and keratinocytes and a bovine collagen
scaffold. The main application of Apligrafâ has been DFUs
and VLUs. The FDA has cleared this product for use during
standard care (SC) for the treatment of full-thickness neuropathic DFU of greater than 3weeks that are not responding to
conventional therapy and which extend through the dermis but
without tendon, muscle, and capsule or bone exposure. In a
prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 2001, it was demonstrated that DFUs treated with BLCC healed signicantly
faster than those treated with a standard dressing regimen [60].
An analysis of skin substitutes utilized in the treatment of
DFUs conducted in 2016 showed that BLCC had a 58% closure rate of DFUs over 90days while at the same time being
less costly than other CTPs in its class (e.g., DSSft) [69].
Dermagraft (DSS)
DSS (Dermagraftâ Organogenesis, Canton, MA) is a
broblast- derived dermal matrix. Fibroblasts from cryopreserved, allogenic, human, neonatal foreskin are cultured onto
a bioabsorbable mesh. As they proliferate, they secrete collagen, matrix proteins, growth factors, and cytokines. The
FDA has approved their use in the treatment of full-thickness
diabetic foot ulcers of greater than 6weeks of duration that
extend through the dermis, but without tendon, muscle, joint
capsule, or bone exposure. It has been shown to stimulate
cellular inltration, angiogenesis, and epithelialization.
Fibroblasts may result in better wound healing and less myobroblastic activity. In addition, cellular dermal substitutes
may promote more rapid vascularization than their acellular
counterparts. A randomized, controlled trial by Marston in
2003 demonstrated statistically signicant improvement in
closure rates when using DSS as compared to wet-dry dressing (30% to 18.3% at 12weeks) for DFUs [61].
Engineered Products (Biomimetics)
Synthetic skin substitutes—These are highly processed and
biologically inert combination wound coverings.
Integra (Omnigraft)®
Integra BiLayer Matrix Wound Dressing® (Integra
LifeSciences Corp., Plansboro, NJ) Integra Dermal
Regeneration Template (IDRT) is composed of cross-linked
bovine collagen and glycosaminoglycan (GAG) biodegradable matrix with a semipermeable silicone membrane, which
aids in water vapor loss, acts as a bacterial barrier, and
increases tear strength. After adequate vascularization, usually requiring 2–3 weeks, an ultrathin epidermal autograft
can usually be placed. The FOUNDERS trial was published

398
https://t.me/med1917
A. Hargis et al.
in 2015, in which individuals with diabetes mellitus with
Wagner Stage I and Stage II DFUs were treated with
IDRT.This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel group clinical trial conducted under an investigational
device exemption. Thirty-two sites enrolled and randomized
307 subjects with at least one DFU.The subjects were ran-
domized to the control treatment group (0.9% sodium chloride gel; n = 153) or the active treatment group (IDRT,
n= 154). By 16 weeks, complete DFU closure during the
treatment phase was signicantly greater with IDRT treatment (51%) than control treatment (32%; p=0.001) (Case 1,
Fig.22.5). The median time to complete DFU closure was
Fig. 22.5 Case 1. DFU treated with IDRT

22 Topical Wound Care Treatment andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
399
43days for IDRT subjects and 78days for control subjects in
wounds that healed. Of those that closed, 72% required only
one application of IDRT [62]. Integra has also demonstrated
good wound healing in complex diabetic foot wounds [70].
Extracellular Matrix Products [ECM]
The extracellular matrix (ECM) is the largest component of
the dermal skin layer, and its disruption in chronic wounds
is the hallmark of failed closure. The proteins contained in
the ECM of normal skin are important in the healing of
acute and chronic wounds. Without the proteoglycans and
glycosaminoglycans of the ECM, the growth factors necessary for wound closure cannot work. The high levels of proteases found in chronic wounds impair healing by degrading
essential components of the ECM [71, 72]. Based on this
theory, new dressings have been developed that are designed
to reduce protease levels in wound uids. This is done by
providing a competitive substrate (collagen) for the proteases and thereby reducing proteolytic destruction of essential ECM components (bronectin) and platelet-derived
growth factors (PDGFs). However, the most common treatment for the corrupted ECM is replacing it from an exogenous source.
Xenograft ECMs
OASIS Wound Matrix® (Cook Biotech. Inc., West Lafayette,
IN) is an intact, single-layer, decellularized wound matrix
derived from porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS). The
FDA has approved OASIS Wound Matrix® as a Class II
(moderate risk) device. It is intended for single use in the
management of various wounds such as those that are partial
and full thickness and related to pressure, venous, diabetic,
and chronic vascular ulcers, tunneled/undermined wounds,
surgical wounds, trauma wounds, and draining wounds.
OASIS Ultra® (Cook Biotech, Inc., West Lafayette, IN) provides the same structural components but is composed of
three layers of ECM.In a prospective DFU trial, 82 subjects
with DFUs (41in each group) were assessed in the intent-totreat analysis. Ulcers treated with SIS had a signicantly
greater proportion closed by 12weeks than for the control
group (54 vs. 32%, p=0.021). Time to closure for ulcers that
healed was 2weeks earlier for the SIS group compared with
the standard care group [63].
PriMatrixTM (Integra, Plainsboro, NJ) is an acellular
ECM derived from fetal bovine dermis. The fetal collagen
substrate contains a high proportion of type III collagen,
which can bind growth factors while providing architecture
to facilitate cell migration, proliferation, and differentiation. The FDA approved this product for the management
of wounds, including partial- and full-thickness wounds;
pressure, diabetic, and venous ulcers; second-degree burns;
surgical wounds; trauma wounds; tunneled/undermined
wounds; and draining wounds. In 2021, the results of a
randomized- controlled trial investigating fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix (FBDAM) in DFU closure were
reported. Although the study was closed early due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, 21 US sites enrolled 207 patients
who were included in a modied intent to treat cohort with
161 completing the full study per protocol. Seventy-nine
patients received FBDAM and 82 did not (SOC). At the
12-week time point, patients in the FBDAM cohort displayed signicantly higher healing rate than those patients
in SOC, with 59.9% achieving full wound closure versus
35.6% (p=0.002) [64].
Allograft ECMs
Acellular dermal matrices are used in a variety of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures. There seems to be host tissue
integration, revascularization, and recellularization into
these products, but the exact timing and differences among
them remain unknown [73–75].
GraftJacket® (KCI, San Antonio, TX) is an acellular scaf-
fold originating from human cadaveric tissue that has demonstrated usefulness mainly in diabetic skin ulcers and
orthopedic soft tissue injuries [76, 77].
In a randomized, controlled trial, patients with diabetic
foot ulcers (DFUs) were standardized to receiver either treatment with GraftJacket® or the standard of care therapy for
DFUs at that institution. These authors demonstrated that
patients treated with GraftJacket® experienced signicantly
better healing time as well as a signicantly lower nonhealing rate as compared to controls. To this end, Brigido performed a prospective, randomized, controlled study to
evaluate the efcacy of sharp debridement plus GraftJacket
application versus sharp debridement only in 28 patients
with diabetes over a 16-week period. Results demonstrate
complete healing by week 16in 12 out of 14 patients in the
GraftJacket group versus 4 out of 14 complete wound closures in the sharp debridement-only group. The author concluded that the use of GraftJacket in addition to sharp
debridement can lead to a statistically signicant increased
percentage of complete healing of lower-extremity ulcerations [78].
Reyzelman and coworkers conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study comparing 47
patients treated with one GraftJacket application versus 39
patients receiving standard care (moist wound therapy using
alginates, foams, and hydrogels as per the physician’s discretion) [65]. They noted complete healing in 69.6% of the
GraftJacket group and 46.2% of the standard care group. The

400
https://t.me/med1917
A. Hargis et al.
average time to healing was 5–7weeks in the GraftJacket
group and 6–8 weeks in the standard care group. These
results demonstrate that DFUs treated with GraftJacket were
two to three times more likely to heal than DFUs treated with
standard wound care therapy alone.
DermACELL recently reported on a 168 patient study versus a standard of care and a GraftJacket arm. One hundred
sixty-eight patients were randomized into DermACELL,
conventional care, and GraftJacket treatment arms in a 2:2:1
ratio [79]. Patients in the acellular dermal matrix groups
received either one or two applications of the graft at the
discretion of the investigator. At 16weeks, the DermACELL
arm had a signicantly higher proportion of completely
healed ulcers than the conventional care arm (67.9 vs. 48.1%;
P=0.0385) and a no signicantly higher proportion than the
GraftJacket arm (67.9 vs. 47.8%; P=0.1149). Overall, this
appears to support the use of ADMs over standard of care.
Amniotic Products
EpiFix® (MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, GA) is engineered
from human allograft amniotic membrane, composed of an
epithelial layer, a basement membrane, and a connective tissue matrix. EpiFix® is regulated by the FDA as human cells,
tissues, and cell- and tissue-based products. Indications
include wound management for patients with neuropathic
DFUs. It is believed that the collagen and extracellular matrix
provided by the amniotic membrane function to promote cellular proliferation and delivery of growth factors, thus facilitating cellular ingrowth. A recent multicenter, prospective,
randomized, comparative study of 60 patients was conducted.
The primary study outcome was the percent change in complete wound healing after 4 and 6weeks of treatment. The
proportion of patients in the EpiFix group achieving complete
wound closure within 4 and 6weeks was 85 and 95%, signicantly higher (all adjusted P-values ≤0.003) than for patients
receiving Apligraf (35 and 45%), or standard care (30 and
35%). After 1week, wounds treated with EpiFix had reduced
in area by 83.5% compared with 53.1% for wounds treated
with Apligraf. Median time to healing was signicantly faster
(all adjusted P-values ≤0.001) with EpiFix (13days) compared to Apligraf (49days) or standard care (49days) [68].
Grax® is a human viable wound matrix (hVWM) manu-
factured utilizing a novel technology (cryopreservation) that
enables the preservation of all placental membrane components in their native state to preserve the ECM and mesenchymal stem cells. In a prospective randomized trial comparing
Grax (n=50) to standard wound care (n=47) for DFU heal-
ing, the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with
complete wound closure by 12weeks. Secondary endpoints
included the time to wound closure, adverse events, and
wound closure in the crossover phase. The proportion of
patients who achieved complete wound closure was signicantly higher in patients who received Grax (62%) compared
with controls (21%, P=0.0001) [66].
Amniox (AmnioBand, Musculoskeletal Transplant
Foundation, Edison, NJ) is an aseptically processed dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (dHACA). This
product has been studied for the treatment of DFUs in a
40-patient prospective trial. Interim results have been
reported. Patients with DFUs treated with standard of care
(SOC) (off-loading, appropriate debridement, and moist
wound care) after a 2-week screening period were randomized to either SOC or wound-size-specic dHACA applied
weekly for up to 12 weeks plus SOC. At 6 weeks, 70%
(14/20) of the dHACA-treated DFUs healed compared with
15% (3/20) treated with SOC alone. Furthermore, at
12weeks, 85% (17/20) of the DFUs in the dHACA group
healed compared with 25% (5/20) in the SOC group [67].
Description ofOther Topical Biologically
Active Products
Collagenase
Clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO, Collagenase Santyl®
Ointment, Smith & Nephew, Hull, UK) is the only enzymatic
agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for debridement of wounds and burns. CCO has been
shown to specically and preferentially digest native collagens without harming healthy tissue and effectively removes
nonviable debris.
The largest single study on the effect of CCO with serial
(weekly) sharp debridement on DFUs looked at 55 subjects
with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2 and a neuropathic, nonischemic foot ulcer who were enrolled into a randomized,
controlled, multicenter trial [80]. Serial sharp debridement
without adjunctive CCO was used in the control group.
While not statistically signicant, wound area decreased
relative to baseline for both the CCO group (−68%, −61%)
and the control group (−36%, −46%) at the end of treatment
(EOT) and 6 weeks later at the end of study (EOS),
respectively.
In addition, a pooled data analysis of four randomized
trials, including the Motley trial, compared clinical effectiveness of CCO to standard care (SC). It includes a total of
174 adult patients with DFUs who underwent treatment
with CCO or SC for 4 or 6 weeks [81]. Assessments
included wound area reduction, wound bed status, and time
to closure. Mean wound area reduction was numerically
greater for CCO than SC at end of treatment (EOT) (−43
vs.-19%). At end of study (EOS) following 6 or 8 weeks
post-treatment, these values were −55% and −25%,
respectively.

22 Topical Wound Care Treatment andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
401
Conclusions
DFUs present a unique challenge for which there are
many topical solutions. While off-loading, tissue bed
preparation, and debridement exist as standard of care for
DFU patients, topical dressings and therapeutics may provide additional benet. Summarized here are the most
current studies published on topical treatments in DFUs.
The choice of topical dressing is an important one. Some
dressings are manufactured to be occlusive and lightly
absorbent in order to protect the moisture that exists, such
as lm dressings. Others are created with high absorbency, such as hydrobers, in order to wick away excess
uid from the wound which may otherwise lead to maceration and breakdown of wound edges. In addition to
dressings, skin substitutes exist in order to encourage
endogenous wound healing. Bioengineered skin products
have demonstrated faster rates of complete wound healing
in comparison with standard of care. While data supports
efcacy of these topical products as compared with SOC,
a one-size-ts-all approach may not sufce in the world of
diabetic wounds. Overall, topical therapy for DFUs will
continue to expand, while consideration of basic DFU
wound care must not be forgotten.
References
1. Everett E, Mathioudakis N.Update on management of diabetic foot
ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1411(1):153–65.
2. Sibbald RG, et al. Preparing the wound bed—debridement, bacterial balance, and moisture balance. Ostomy Wound Manage.
2000;46(11):14–22, 24–8, 30–5; quiz 36–7.
3. Falanga V.Classications for wound bed preparation and stimulation of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2000;8(5):347–52.
4. Schultz GS, etal. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach
to wound management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003;11(Suppl
1):S1–28.
5. Sibbald RG, etal. Preparing the wound bed 2003: focus on infection
and inammation. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(11):24–51.
6. Sibbald RG, etal. Best practice recommendations for preparing the
wound bed: update 2006. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20(7):390–
405; quiz 406–7.
7. Wu L, etal. Dressings for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2015;7:CD010471.
8. Wang Y, Chao N, Yin D.A net meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of different types of dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot.
Comput Math Methods Med. 2022;2022:4915402.
9. Motta G.The kestrel wound product sourcebook. Bristol: Vermont
Kestrel Health Information Inc.–2005; 2005.
10. Gilje O. On taping (adhesive tape treatment) of leg ulcers. Acta
Derm Venereol. 1948;28(5):454–67.
11. Winter GD.Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelization of
supercial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. Nature.
1962;193(4812):293–4.
12. Winter GD.EFFECT OF AIR EXPOSURE AND OCCLUSION
ON EXPERIMENTAL HUMAN SKIN WOUNDS. Nature.
1963;200:377–8.
13. Alvarez O.Moist environment for healing: matching the dressing to
the wound. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1988;21:64–83.
14. Hutchinson J, McGuckin M.Occlusive dressings: a microbiologic
and clinical review. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18(4):257–68.
15. Choucair M, Phillips T.Wound dressings. In: Freedberg I-M, etal.,
editors. Fitzpatrick’s dermatology in general medicine, Bask, vol.
6. McGraw Hill; 2003.
16. Stoica AE, Chircov C, Grumezescu AM. Hydrogel dressings for
the treatment of burn wounds: an up-to-date overview. Materials.
2020;13(12):2853.
17. Darkovich S, Brown-Etris M, Spencer M.Biolm hydrogel dressing: a clinical evaluation in the treatment of pressure sores. Ostomy
Wound Manage. 1990;29:47–60.
18. Kucan JO, et al. Comparison of silver sulfadiazine, povidoneiodine and physiologic saline in the treatment of chronic pressure
ulcers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1981;29(5):232–5.
19. Klasen H.A historical review of the use of silver in the treatment
of burns. II.Renewed interest for silver. Burns. 2000;26(2):131–8.
20. Dumville JC, et al. Hydrogel dressings for healing diabetic foot
ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;13(7):CD009101.
21. Alvarez O, et al. Effectiveness of a biocellulose wound dressing for the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers: results of a
single center randomized study involving 24 patients. Wounds.
2004;16(7):224–33.
22. Broussard KC, Powers JG.Wound dressings: selecting the most
appropriate type. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2013;14(6):449–59.
23. Ovington LG.The well-dressed wound: an overview of dressing
types. Health Management Publ; 1998.
24. Piaggesi A, etal. Sodium carboxyl-methyl-cellulose dressings in
the management of deep ulcerations of diabetic foot. Diabet Med.
2001;18(4):320–4.
25. Jude E, et al. Prospective randomized controlled study of
Hydrober® dressing containing ionic silver or calcium alginate
dressings in non-ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med.
2007;24(3):280–8.
26. Gentzkow GD, etal. Use of dermagraft, a cultured human dermis,
to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(4):350–4.
27. Dumville JC, etal. Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6):CD009111.
28. Alvarez OM, Mertz PM, Eaglstein WH.The effect of occlusive
dressings on collagen synthesis and re-epithelialization in supercial wounds. J Surg Res. 1983;35(2):142–8.
29. Yazdanpanah L, Nasiri M, Adarvishi S.Literature review on the
management of diabetic foot ulcer. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(1):37.
30. Sotto A, et al. Distinguishing colonization from infection with
Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot ulcers with miniaturized
oligonucleotide arrays: a French multicenter study. Diabetes Care.
2012;35(3):617–23.
31. Alvarez OM. Healing wounds: occlusion or exposure. Inf Surg.
1984:173–81.
32. Mustoe TA, O’shaughnessy K, Kloeters O.Chronic wound pathogenesis and current treatment strategies: a unifying hypothesis.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7S):35S–41S.
33. Thomas S.Alginate dressings in surgery and wound management:
part 3. J Wound Care. 2000;9(4):163–6.
34. Dumville JC, et al. Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot
ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(2):CD009110.
35. Diehm C, Lawall H.Evaluation of Tielle hydropolymer dressings
in the management of chronic exuding wounds in primary care. Int
Wound J. 2005;2(1):26–35.

402
https://t.me/med1917
A. Hargis et al.
36. Robson MC, etal. Innovations for wound bed preparation: the role
of Drawtex hydroconductive dressings. In: Proceedings of a symposium of investigators. 2012.
37. Prabhu S, Poulose EK.Silver nanoparticles: mechanism of antimicrobial action, synthesis, medical applications, and toxicity effects.
Int Nano Lett. 2012;2:1–10.
38. Ong S-Y, et al. Development of a chitosan-based wound dressing with improved hemostatic and antimicrobial properties.
Biomaterials. 2008;29(32):4323–32.
39. Storm-Versloot MN, et al. Topical silver for preventing wound
infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3
40. Bergin S, Wraight P. Silver based wound dressings and topical
agents for treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2006;(1):CD005082.
41. Holloway G Jr, etal. Multicenter trial of cadexomer iodine to treat
venous stasis ulcer. West J Med. 1989;151(1):35.
42. Apelqvist J.Cavity foot ulcers in diabetic patients: a comparative
study of cadexomer iodine ointment and standard treatment. An
economic analysis alongside a clinical trial. Acta Derm Venereol.
1996;76(3):231–5.
43. Pirayesh A, etal. The efcacy of a polyhydrated ionogen impregnated dressing in the treatment of recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers: a
multi-centre pilot study. Acta Chir Belg. 2007;107(6):675–81.
44. Conklin A.UW study tests topical honey as a treatment for diabetic
ulcers. 2011.
45. Shukrimi A, etal. A comparative study between honey and povidone iodine as dressing solution for Wagner type II diabetic foot
ulcers. Med J Malaysia. 2008;63(1):44–6.
46. Jull AB, etal. Honey as a topical treatment for wounds. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2015(3).
47. Ovington LG. Hanging wet-to-dry dressings out to dry. Home
Healthcare Now. 2001;19(8):477–83.
48. Hutchinson JJ. Prevalence of wound infection under occlusive dressings: a collected survey of reported research. Wounds.
1989;1:123–33.
49. Lawrence JC. Dressings and wound infection. Am J Surg.
1994;167(1):S21–4.
50. Castronuovo JJ Jr, etal. Effects of chronic wound uid on the structure and biological activity of becaplermin (rhPDGF-BB) and becaplermin gel. Am J Surg. 1998;176(2A Suppl):61s–7s.
51. Smiell JM. Clinical safety of becaplermin (rhPDGF-BB)
gel. Becaplermin Studies Group. Am J Surg. 1998;176(2A
Suppl):68s–73s.
52. Steed DL, etal. Effect of extensive debridement and treatment on
the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetic Ulcer Study Group. J
Am Coll Surg. 1996;183(1):61–4.
53. Martí-Carvajal AJ, et al. Growth factors for treating diabetic foot
ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(10):Cd008548.
54. Steed DL. Clinical evaluation of recombinant human plateletderived growth factor for the treatment of lower extremity diabetic
ulcers. Diabetic Ulcer Study Group. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21(1):71–8;
discussion 79–81.
55. Wieman TJ, Smiell JM, Su Y.Efcacy and safety of a topical gel
formulation of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB (becaplermin) in patients with chronic neuropathic diabetic
ulcers. A phase III randomized placebo-controlled double-blind
study. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(5):822–7.
56. Lantis JC 2nd, etal. Analysis of patient cost for recombinant human
platelet-derived growth factor therapy as the rst-line treatment of
the insured patient with a diabetic foot ulcer. Adv Skin Wound
Care. 2009;22(4):167–71.
57. Helixmith announces phase 3 study results of novel gene therapy
treatment for diabetic foot ulcers at 2021 annual meeting of diabetic foot ulcer conference (DFCon), Newsire CP, editor, Cision
PR Newsire; 2022.
58. Widgerow AD.Bioengineered skin substitute considerations in the
diabetic foot ulcer. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(2):239–44.
59. Teng YJ, etal. Bioengineered skin in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes
Obes Metab. 2010;12(4):307–15.
60. Veves A, etal. Graftskin, a human skin equivalent, is effective in
the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers:
a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care.
2001;24(2):290–5.
61. Marston WA, et al. The efficacy and safety of Dermagraft
in improving the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers:
results of a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care.
2003;26(6):1701–5.
62. Driver VR, etal. A clinical trial of integra template for diabetic foot
ulcer treatment. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23(6):891–900.
63. Cazzell SM, et al. The management of diabetic foot ulcers
with porcine small intestine submucosa tri-layer matrix: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle).
2015;4(12):711–8.
64. Lantis JC, etal. Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure
of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomised controlled trial. J
Wound Care. 2021;30(Sup7):S18–s27.
65. Reyzelman A, etal. Clinical effectiveness of an acellular dermal
regenerative tissue matrix compared to standard wound management in healing diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective, randomised,
multicentre study. Int Wound J. 2009;6(3):196–208.
66. Lavery LA, etal. The efcacy and safety of Grax(®) for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a multi- Centre,
controlled, randomised, blinded, clinical trial. Int Wound J.
2014;11(5):554–60.
67. DiDomenico LA, et al. Aseptically processed placental membrane improves healing of diabetic foot ulcerations: prospective, randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open.
2016;4(10):e1095.
68. Zelen CM, et al. A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre comparative effectiveness study of healing using dehydrated
human amnion/chorion membrane allograft, bioengineered skin
substitute or standard of care for treatment of chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers. Int Wound J. 2015;12(6):724–32.
69. Martinson M, Martinson N.A comparative analysis of skin substitutes used in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. J Wound Care.
2016;25(Sup10):S8–s17.
70. Hicks CW, et al. Outcomes and predictors of wound healing
among patients with complex diabetic foot wounds treated with
a dermal regeneration template (Integra). Plast Reconstr Surg.
2020;146(4):893–902.
71. Pellegrini L, et al. Crystal structure of broblast growth factor receptor ectodomain bound to ligand and heparin. Nature.
2000;407(6807):1029–34.
72. Raff M, etal. Molecular biology of the cell. 4th ed. National Center
for Biotechnology InformationÕs Bookshelf; 2002.
73. Randall KL, et al. Use of an acellular regenerative tissue
matrix in combination with vacuum-assisted closure therapy
for treatment of a diabetic foot wound. J Foot Ankle Surg.
2008;47(5):430–3.
74. Albo D, etal. Decellularized human cadaveric dermis provides a
safe alternative for primary inguinal hernia repair in contaminated
surgical elds. Am J Surg. 2006;192(5):e12–7.

22 Topical Wound Care Treatment andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
403
75. Ringley CD, etal. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with human
acellular dermal matrix patch: our initial experience. Am J Surg.
2006;192(6):767–72.
76. Wong I, Burns J, Snyder S.Arthroscopic GraftJacket repair of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(2 Suppl):104–9.
77. Anley CM, Chan SK, Snow M. Arthroscopic treatment options
for irreparable rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. World J Orthop.
2014;5(5):557–65.
78. Brigido SA. The use of an acellular dermal regenerative tissue
matrix in the treatment of lower extremity wounds: a prospective
16-week pilot study. Int Wound J. 2006;3(3):181–7.
79. Walters J, etal. Healing rates in a multicenter assessment of a sterile, room temperature, acellular dermal matrix versus conventional
care wound management and an active comparator in the treatment
of full-thickness diabetic foot ulcers. Eplasty. 2016;16:e10.
80. Motley TA, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with serial sharp
debridement of diabetic foot ulcers with and without clostridial collagenase ointment. Wounds. 2014;26(3):57–64.
81. Lantis Ii JC, Gordon I. Clostridial collagenase for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: results of four randomized controlled
trials. Wounds. 2017;29(10):297–305. https://doi.org/10.25270/
wnds/2017.10.297305.

Surgical Treatment oftheUlcerated
https://t.me/med1917
Foot
JuanCeja Solorio andJohnM.Giurini
23
Abstract
Foot ulcerations with infection continue to be one of the
leading causes of hospitalization for patients with diabetes mellitus. The lifetime incidence of foot ulcerations
may be as high as 25%. In spite of advances in the care of
the diabetic foot, the rate of recidivism remains as high as
50% with the majority of these ulcerations recurring
within 15 months. This has signicant socioeconomic
ramications on families and the healthcare system when
one considers time out of work and lost wages and that the
average cost of healing an infected ulceration not requiring amputation is approximately $17,500 per episode.
Successful treatment of diabetic foot infections and
ulcerations requires a thorough understanding of the risk
factors for ulcerations and amputations. It also requires
taking advantage of advances in antimicrobial therapy,
advanced wound healing strategies, and improved vascular interventions. This can also include an earlier surgical
approach for correction of structural deformities that contribute to the recurrence of ulcerations and when conservative management fails. In order to achieve successful
outcomes, an understanding of foot mechanics and structures is imperative in addition to understanding the risks
of surgery. This can be aided by the establishment of
treatment algorithms and a dedicated team of healthcare
professionals to manage these complex problems.
J. Ceja Solorio
Rio Grande Foot and Ankle Specialist, Santa Fe, NM, USA
J. M. Giurini (*)
Division of Podiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,
Boston, MA, USA
Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA, USA
Joslin-BI Deaconess Diabetic Foot Center, Needham, MA, USA
e-mail: jgiurini@bidmc.harvard.edu
Introduction
Foot ulceration with subsequent infection is one of the leading causes of hospitalization for patients with diabetes mellitus. Recent studies have placed the lifetime incidence of
diabetic foot ulceration as high as 34% [1]. It is also estimated that the recurrence rate of ulceration is 65% in
3–5 years. The number of lower extremity amputations
among diabetic patients has been well documented for years.
Approximately 73,000 nontraumatic lower limb amputations
were performed in 2010in people with diabetes [2]. While
the amputation rate decreased from 11.2 to 3.9 per 1000 diabetic patients between1996 and 2018, this is seven times
higher than in non-diabetic patients [3]. More importantly,
85% of these amputations are preceded by a foot ulcer [4, 5].
The causative factors leading to ulceration are likewise
well documented. Peripheral neuropathy is present in over
75% of diabetic patients who develop foot ulcers. The second most common factor is excessive plantar pressure
resulting from limited joint mobility and foot deformities
[6, 7]. Current algorithms for treatment take advantage of
recent advances in antimicrobial therapy and wound healing
strategies that include topical growth factor, living skin
equivalents (LSE), amniotic tissue, hyperbaric oxygen
(HBO), and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) [7].
In spite of these advances, a signicant number of ulcerations will fail to heal. In these cases surgical intervention
plays an important role in the treatment of ulcerations and in
prevention of recurrence. Additionally, surgical intervention
is the treatment of choice for chronic osteomyelitis and
severe deformities associated with diabetic neuroarthropathy, i.e., Charcot joint disease. Successful outcomes in these
patients depend on a dedicated team of healthcare professionals who understand the role of surgery in managing
these complex problems [8–14].
© 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_23
405

406
https://t.me/med1917
J. Ceja Solorio and J. M. Giurini
Goals ofSurgery
One of the most important concepts for the surgeon and
patient to understand are the goals of surgery. The goals of
surgery in patients with foot deformities and a history of
ulceration differ from those in patients with foot deformities
and normal sensation. It is important that these are clearly
delineated by the surgeon and the patient must demonstrate
an understanding of these goals.
The primary goal of surgery in patients with foot deformities and normal sensation is to eliminate the patient’s source
of pain from the underlying deformity. Cosmesis is also an
important consideration in this patient population. In diabetic patients with a current or recurrent ulceration, the
primary goal of surgery is to reduce the risk of lower extremity amputation by correcting the structural deformity that
creates an area of high plantar pressure that results in the
ulceration, or eliminating a focus of osteomyelitis
(Table23.1). In this group of patients, cosmesis, while desirable, becomes secondary to the overall goal of limb salvage.
The primary goal in patients undergoing reconstructive surgery for an unstable, unbraceable Charcot joint deformity is
a plantigrade, braceable foot that reduces the risk for ulceration or limb loss.
It is also important to distinguish between elective surgery, preventive surgery, and urgent/emergent surgery as it
pertains to the diabetic foot [15]. Elective surgery is performed in the presence of a deformity when there is no infection present and when there is no immediate risk of limb
loss. These deformities may also be managed without surgery and in certain clinical situations this conservative
approach may be in the patient’s best interest (Table23.2).
Table 23.1 Surgical goals in the insensate patient
• Reduce risk for ulceration/amputation
• Resection of osteomyelitis
• Reduce foot deformity
• Provide stable foot for ambulation
• Reduce pain
• Improve appearance of foot
Table 23.2 Classication of diabetic foot surgery
• Class I: Elective. Reconstructive procedures on patients
who do not have loss of protective sensation (LOPS)
• Class II: Prophylactic. Reconstructive procedures performed
to reduce the risk of ulceration or reulceration in patients
who have LPS and do not have a wound present
• Class III: Curative. Procedures performed to assist in healing
of open wounds
• Class IV: Emergent. Procedures performed to arrest or limit
progression of infection
Reproduced with permission from Frykberg RG, Bevilacqua NJ,
Habershaw G.J Vasc Surg. Surgical off-loading of the diabetic foot.
52(3): 44S–58S, 2010
Preventive surgery is dened as surgery performed to prevent a more serious event, namely amputation. There is often
a history of a chronically recurrent ulceration with an underlying deformity that puts the limb at risk. Surgery in this scenario can be considered to correct the deformity thus
reducing the risk of recurrence and amputation.
Urgent/emergent surgery is self-explanatory. These
patients will present with foul-smelling ulcerations, purulent
drainage, and cellulitis with or without systemic symptoms.
Necrosis and abscess formation are not uncommon. These
patients require immediate surgical intervention. In these
situations the immediate goal is to achieve control of the
infection, stabilize the patient, and to save as much of the
foot and/or leg as possible. These patients will require additional revisional surgery to provide a functional foot and
extremity.
Preoperative Evaluation
Diabetic patients, especially those with complications, are at
increased risk for surgery. Therefore a detailed medical history, surgical history, list of current medications and especially identication of risk factors such as smoking, cardiac
disease, and nephropathy is critical to proper preoperative
risk assessment. Additionally an assessment of the patient’s
diabetes control via HgbA1C can alert the surgeon to potential complications postoperatively. It has long been believed
that poor metabolic control is associated with higher postoperative infection rates, delayed wound healing, and higher
nonunion rates than in well controlled diabetic patients or
non-diabetic patients. This is believed to be secondary to the
inhibition of leukocyte migration by elevated glucose levels.
Recent reports show that random blood sugars >200mg/dL
are associated with increased rates of surgical site infections
(SSI) [16]. Wound healing complications following foot and
ankle surgery increased by a factor of 1.59 for every 1% elevation in HgbA1C. [17, 18] It has also been shown that
peripheral neuropathy and poor metabolic control can affect
bone healing in patients undergoing reconstructive surgery
for Charcot joint disease. A preoperative discussion with the
patient’s endocrinologist is warranted in order to optimize
blood sugar management before surgery to minimize risks of
complications, especially when elective or preventive surgery is contemplated. It may be prudent to delay these type
of procedures until better glycemic control can be achieved.
However, this is not possible in urgent or emergent surgery.
These type of procedures should not be delayed in order to
achieve optimum control.
Vascular, cardiac, and renal complications are the most
common complications we see in our diabetic patients. These
complications can inuence choice of anesthesia as well as
use of medications postoperatively. Because of autonomic

23 Surgical Treatment oftheUlcerated Foot
https://t.me/med1917
neuropathy, the risk of silent myocardial infarction is real. In
a recent study looking for subclinical myocardial damage,
troponin levels were measured in nondiabetic, pre-diabetic,
and diabetic patients at baseline and 6 years later [19].
Troponin levels were found to be signicantly elevated after
6years in pre-diabetic and diabetic patients over nondiabetic
patients suggesting that subclinical myocardial damage had
occurred in the absence of symptoms secondary to longstanding hyperglycemia. The authors concluded that those
two groups were at substantially higher risk of heart failure,
death, and coronary heart disease over nondiabetic counterparts. Diabetic patients with underlying renal disease, and
especially those on dialysis, have demonstrated a decreased
ability to heal their index ulceration and will usually exhibit
complications following surgery [20–22]. Renal transplant
patients pose an additional challenge by being on immunosuppressive medications. Therefore, in addition to endocrinology, consultations with cardiology and nephrology may
be warranted.
An additional consideration is the use of blood thinners
or antiplatelet agents, (e.g., warfarin, apixaban, ribovaxin,
etc.) following peripheral vascular interventions, cardiac
interventions, or strokes. For minor procedures, these can
often be continued. However for more invasive surgical
interventions, it may be best to hold these agents in the perioperative period following a discussion with the vascular
surgeon or cardiologist.
The vascular evaluation of the diabetic foot requires special attention and discussion. An entire chapter in this book
is dedicated to the vascular evaluation and treatment of the
diabetic patient. It has been recommended by the Society for
Vascular Surgery that all diabetic patients over the age of 50
have baseline noninvasive arterial studies. While the majority of diabetic patients with strongly palpable pedal pulses
will usually heal a local foot procedure without difculty,
there are reports and instances of diabetic patients with ischemic lesions in the presence of palpable pulses [23, 24].
Patients with weakly palpable or nonpalpable pedal pulses
require further vascular evaluation or a formal vascular surgery consultation. The ankle-brachial index (ABI) remains
the most common method of diagnosing peripheral arterial
disease in patients with diabetes [25]. However, the ABI can
be falsely elevated due to arterial medial calcinosis and noncompressible vessels and more attention should be given to
the pulse volume recordings (PVR). The toe-brachial index
(TBI) as measured at the level of the great toe may be more
sensitive than the ABI in diagnosing ischemia as digital vessels are less susceptible to medial calcinosis [26, 27].
Vascular intervention may be necessary prior to limb-sparing
surgery [28, 29].
Patients with autonomic neuropathy require special mention. These patients will often present with pink, warm skin
on the surface of the foot. This can be easily mistaken for a
407
Fig. 23.1 Failure to recognize critical ischemia resulted in surgical
failure in diabetic patient with autonomic neuropathy
foot with good arterial perfusion even in the presence of critical ischemia (Fig.23.1). Skin temperature alone cannot be
relied upon as an indicator of good perfusion.
Finally, a detailed social history has become increasingly
important. More of the burden for the patient’s aftercare is
being placed on the patient’s family. The majority of patients
will require daily dressing changes and prolonged periods of
nonweightbearing. For this reason, visiting nurses, home
health aides, and physical therapists have become vital members of the multidisciplinary team. In situations where there
is less than adequate support for these services at home,
admission to a rehabilitative center should be considered.
These factors should be identied early in the course of the
patient’s hospitalization so that discharge planning can proceed in a timely and stress free manner as there are increased
pressures to reduce patients’ length of stay
Anesthesia Techniques
The presence of profound peripheral sensory neuropathy and
the localized nature of many of these procedures make local
anesthesia with monitored intravenous sedation ideal for diabetic patients undergoing foot surgery. Popliteal nerve blocks
are an excellent choice for many of these procedures as well.
They have the additional advantage of providing extended
postoperative pain relief. Epidural or general anesthesia
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
