Comparative Efficacy of Autolytic and Collagenase-Based Enzymatic Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Systematic Review

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
Ali Amadeh, Negin Mohebbi, Zahra Amadeh, Amirreza Jamshidbeigi
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Autolytic and Collagenase-Based Enzymatic Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Systematic Review","authors":"Ali Amadeh,&nbsp;Negin Mohebbi,&nbsp;Zahra Amadeh,&nbsp;Amirreza Jamshidbeigi","doi":"10.1111/iwj.70177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, and burn injuries, present significant challenges for healthcare systems, with debridement being crucial for healing. This review compares the efficacy of autolytic and enzymatic debridement techniques. The objective was to assess clinical outcomes related to both methods, focusing on wound size reduction, granulation tissue formation, epithelialisation, complete healing, and adverse events. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed across multiple databases, identifying five eligible studies involving 236 patients. Results indicated that enzymatic debridement was more effective, showing faster wound size reduction in four out of five studies, with Baloorkar et al. reporting a 65% size reduction compared to 50% for autolytic debridement (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Granulation tissue formation and epithelialisation rates were also significantly higher with enzymatic methods. Complete healing occurred in 65% of cases using enzymatic debridement versus 50% for autolytic methods (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Mild irritation was the most common adverse event noted in the enzymatic group. In conclusion, enzymatic debridement proved to be superior for severe wounds, while autolytic debridement remains beneficial for less severe cases due to its non-invasive nature. Both methods were well tolerated, but further research is needed for definitive clinical guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":14451,"journal":{"name":"International Wound Journal","volume":"22 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/iwj.70177","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Wound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iwj.70177","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, and burn injuries, present significant challenges for healthcare systems, with debridement being crucial for healing. This review compares the efficacy of autolytic and enzymatic debridement techniques. The objective was to assess clinical outcomes related to both methods, focusing on wound size reduction, granulation tissue formation, epithelialisation, complete healing, and adverse events. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed across multiple databases, identifying five eligible studies involving 236 patients. Results indicated that enzymatic debridement was more effective, showing faster wound size reduction in four out of five studies, with Baloorkar et al. reporting a 65% size reduction compared to 50% for autolytic debridement (p < 0.05). Granulation tissue formation and epithelialisation rates were also significantly higher with enzymatic methods. Complete healing occurred in 65% of cases using enzymatic debridement versus 50% for autolytic methods (p = 0.04). Mild irritation was the most common adverse event noted in the enzymatic group. In conclusion, enzymatic debridement proved to be superior for severe wounds, while autolytic debridement remains beneficial for less severe cases due to its non-invasive nature. Both methods were well tolerated, but further research is needed for definitive clinical guidelines.

Abstract Image

慢性伤口,包括糖尿病足溃疡、压疮和烧伤,给医疗系统带来了巨大的挑战,而清创是伤口愈合的关键。本综述比较了自溶清创技术和酶解清创技术的疗效。目的是评估这两种方法的临床疗效,重点关注伤口缩小、肉芽组织形成、上皮化、完全愈合和不良反应。我们在多个数据库中对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统回顾,确定了五项符合条件的研究,涉及 236 名患者。结果显示,酶法清创更有效,五项研究中有四项显示伤口面积缩小更快,Baloorkar 等人报告的伤口面积缩小率为 65%,而自溶清创为 50%(p <0.05)。肉芽组织形成率和上皮化率也明显高于酶解法。使用酶法清创的病例中有 65% 实现了完全愈合,而使用自溶清创法的病例中只有 50% 实现了完全愈合(p = 0.04)。轻度刺激是酶法组最常见的不良反应。总之,事实证明酶解清创法更适用于严重的伤口,而自溶清创法由于其非侵入性,仍适用于不太严重的病例。两种方法的耐受性都很好,但仍需进一步研究,以制定明确的临床指南。
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
International Wound Journal
International Wound Journal DERMATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.90%
发文量
266
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Editors welcome papers on all aspects of prevention and treatment of wounds and associated conditions in the fields of surgery, dermatology, oncology, nursing, radiotherapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy and podiatry. The Journal accepts papers in the following categories: - Research papers - Review articles - Clinical studies - Letters - News and Views: international perspectives, education initiatives, guidelines and different activities of groups and societies. Calendar of events The Editors are supported by a board of international experts and a panel of reviewers across a range of disciplines and specialties which ensures only the most current and relevant research is published.
×
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