The Infected Diabetic Foot: Does Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Irrigation Reduce Bioburden and Improve Wound Healing?

Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew Malone, Michael C Siah, Arthur Tarricone, Tyler L Coye, Bijan Najafi, Lawrence A Lavery
{"title":"The Infected Diabetic Foot: Does Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Irrigation Reduce Bioburden and Improve Wound Healing?","authors":"Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew Malone, Michael C Siah, Arthur Tarricone, Tyler L Coye, Bijan Najafi, Lawrence A Lavery","doi":"10.1177/15347346241292125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the microbial loads of patients with diabetic foot infections treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with and without irrigation with polyhexamethylene biguanide (NPWTi-P). This is a post hoc analysis of combined data of two randomized clinical trials. We evaluated people with diabetes treated with moderate and severe diabetic foot infections that required surgery. Tissue specimens were obtained after the initial surgery and following a second planned return to the operating room after 48-72 h of NPWT or NPWTi-P, prior to the second surgery. We used quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to determine the total microbial loads (Log<sub>10</sub> 16S copies per gram of tissue). There was no difference in mean quantitative bacterial cultures among patients that received NPWT and NPWTi-P (before first surgery Log<sub>10</sub>: NPWT = 6.4 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.5 ± 1.7 vs before second surgery Log<sub>10</sub>: NPWT = 6.7 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.6 ± 1.9 p = .12). There was no difference in wound healing (59.5% vs 50.0%, p = .51) or time to heal (127 ± 109.3 vs 143 ± 95.9), p = .71). There were fewer re-infections in people that received traditional NPWT (28.6% vs 56.3%, p = .05). <b>Level of Clinical Evidence:</b> Level 1.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":" ","pages":"15347346241292125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241292125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the microbial loads of patients with diabetic foot infections treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with and without irrigation with polyhexamethylene biguanide (NPWTi-P). This is a post hoc analysis of combined data of two randomized clinical trials. We evaluated people with diabetes treated with moderate and severe diabetic foot infections that required surgery. Tissue specimens were obtained after the initial surgery and following a second planned return to the operating room after 48-72 h of NPWT or NPWTi-P, prior to the second surgery. We used quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to determine the total microbial loads (Log10 16S copies per gram of tissue). There was no difference in mean quantitative bacterial cultures among patients that received NPWT and NPWTi-P (before first surgery Log10: NPWT = 6.4 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.5 ± 1.7 vs before second surgery Log10: NPWT = 6.7 ± 1.8, NPWTi-P = 7.6 ± 1.9 p = .12). There was no difference in wound healing (59.5% vs 50.0%, p = .51) or time to heal (127 ± 109.3 vs 143 ± 95.9), p = .71). There were fewer re-infections in people that received traditional NPWT (28.6% vs 56.3%, p = .05). Level of Clinical Evidence: Level 1.

感染的糖尿病足:负压伤口冲洗疗法能否减轻生物负荷并改善伤口愈合?
本研究旨在比较采用负压伤口疗法(NPWT)治疗和不采用聚六亚甲基双胍灌洗(NPWTi-P)治疗的糖尿病足感染患者的微生物负荷。这是对两项随机临床试验的综合数据进行的事后分析。我们对患有中度和重度糖尿病足感染并需要手术治疗的糖尿病患者进行了评估。组织标本是在首次手术后和第二次手术前,在 NPWT 或 NPWTi-P 48-72 小时后按计划返回手术室后采集的。我们使用定量聚合酶链反应 (qPCR) 来确定微生物的总载量(每克组织的 Log10 16S 拷贝数)。接受 NPWT 和 NPWTi-P 的患者的平均定量细菌培养结果没有差异(第一次手术前 Log10:NPWT = 6.4 ± 1.8,NPWTi-P = 7.5 ± 1.7 vs 第二次手术前 Log10:NPWT = 6.7 ± 1.8,NPWTi-P = 7.6 ± 1.9 p = .12)。伤口愈合率(59.5% vs 50.0%,p = .51)和愈合时间(127 ± 109.3 vs 143 ± 95.9)没有差异,p = .71)。接受传统 NPWT 治疗的患者再感染率较低(28.6% 对 56.3%,P = .05)。临床证据级别:1 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信