Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
33 Мб
Скачать
22 Topical Wound Care Treatment andIndications forTheir 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 (Grax)
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
+ + +
+ + +
etal. [55]
b
56 vs. 38 at 12 weeks
Veves etal. [60]
c
DSS 30 vs.
18 at 12 weeks
Marston etal. [61]
d
IDRT 51 vs.
32in 16 weeks
Driver etal. [62]
e
SIS 54 vs.
32 at 12 weeks
Cazzell etal. [63]
FBDAMfHADWMghVWMhdHACA 60 vs.
36 at 12 weeks
Lantis etal. [64]
70 vs. 46 at 12weeks
Reyzelman etal. [65]
62 vs. 21 at 12 weeks
Lavery etal. [66]
85 vs. 25 at 12 weeks
DiDomenico etal. [67]
i
397
dHACA 95 vs.
35 at 6 weeks
Zelen etal. [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 3weeks 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 signicantly 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 90days 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 6weeks of duration that extend through the dermis, but without tendon, muscle, joint capsule, or bone exposure. It has been shown to stimulate cellular inltration, angiogenesis, and epithelialization. Fibroblasts may result in better wound healing and less myo­broblastic 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 signicant improvement in closure rates when using DSS as compared to wet-dry dress­ing (30% to 18.3% at 12weeks) 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 signicantly 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 andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
399
43days for IDRT subjects and 78days 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 (41in each group) were assessed in the intent-to­treat analysis. Ulcers treated with SIS had a signicantly greater proportion closed by 12weeks than for the control group (54 vs. 32%, p=0.021). Time to closure for ulcers that healed was 2weeks 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 modied 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 signicantly 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 [7375].
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 signicantly better healing time as well as a signicantly lower nonheal­ing rate as compared to controls. To this end, Brigido per­formed a prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the efcacy 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 16in 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 signicant 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 5–7weeks 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 16weeks, the DermACELL arm had a signicantly higher proportion of completely healed ulcers than the conventional care arm (67.9 vs. 48.1%; P=0.0385) and a no signicantly 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 6weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients in the EpiFix group achieving complete wound closure within 4 and 6weeks was 85 and 95%, signi­cantly higher (all adjusted P-values 0.003) than for patients receiving Apligraf (35 and 45%), or standard care (30 and 35%). After 1week, 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 signicantly faster (all adjusted P-values 0.001) with EpiFix (13days) com­pared to Apligraf (49days) or standard care (49days) [68].
Grax® 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 Grax (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 12weeks. 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 signi­cantly higher in patients who received Grax (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-specic 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 12weeks, 85% (17/20) of the DFUs in the dHACA group healed compared with 25% (5/20) in the SOC group [67].
Description ofOther 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 specically 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 signicant, 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 andIndications forTheir 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 benet. 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 hydrobers, 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 efcacy of these topical products as compared with SOC, a one-size-ts-all approach may not sufce 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.Classications for wound bed preparation and stimula­tion of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2000;8(5):347–52.
4. Schultz GS, etal. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003;11(Suppl
1):S1–28.
5. Sibbald RG, etal. Preparing the wound bed 2003: focus on infection and inammation. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003;49(11):24–51.
6. Sibbald RG, etal. 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, etal. 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 supercial 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, etal., 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.Biolm 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, etal. 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 Hydrober® dressing containing ionic silver or calcium alginate dressings in non-ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med. 2007;24(3):280–8.
26. Gentzkow GD, etal. Use of dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(4):350–4.
27. Dumville JC, etal. 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 super­cial 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. The efcacy 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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.Efcacy 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, etal. 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, etal. Bioengineered skin in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010;12(4):307–15.
60. Veves A, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. The efcacy and safety of Grax(®) 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 andIndications forTheir Use
https://t.me/med1917
403
75. Ringley CD, etal. 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, etal. 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 oftheUlcerated
https://t.me/med1917
Foot
JuanCeja Solorio andJohnM.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 signicant socioeconomic ramications 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 2010in 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 signicant 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 [814].
© 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 ofSurgery
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 (Table23.1). 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 (Table23.2).
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 Classication 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 dened 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 identication 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 >200mg/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 inuence choice of anesthesia as well as use of medications postoperatively. Because of autonomic
23 Surgical Treatment oftheUlcerated 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 signicantly elevated after 6years 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 [2022]. 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 difculty, 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 identied 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