Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone
{"title":"比较冷冻和冻干脐带组织治疗复杂糖尿病足伤的随机临床试验。","authors":"Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone","doi":"10.1177/15347346241273282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm<sup>2</sup> for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm<sup>2</sup> for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm<sup>3</sup> for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, <i>P</i> = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, <i>P</i> = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, <i>P</i> = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, <i>P</i> = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (<i>P</i> = .75) or volume (<i>P</i> = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":" ","pages":"15347346241273282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Cryopreserved and Lyopreserved Umbilical Cord Tissue to Treat Complex Diabetic Foot Wounds.\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15347346241273282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm<sup>2</sup> for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm<sup>2</sup> for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm<sup>3</sup> for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, <i>P</i> = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, <i>P</i> = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, <i>P</i> = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, <i>P</i> = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (<i>P</i> = .75) or volume (<i>P</i> = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The international journal of lower extremity wounds\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15347346241273282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"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/10.1177/15347346241273282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241273282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
比较冷冻保留(CPUT)和冷冻保留脐带组织(LPUT)治疗复杂糖尿病手术创面的感染发生率、创面愈合和创面愈合时间。这项为期12周的单盲随机临床试验比较了冷冻保存和冷冻保存羊膜脐带组织治疗复杂的糖尿病足伤。LPUT或CRAT在基线时应用,四周后再次应用。我们招募了有uta2 - d和a3 - d伤口的受试者(深度至肌腱、肌肉或骨骼并感染和/或PAD),排除了CPUT的ABI为2的受试者和LPUT的ABI为11.7±7.0 cm2的受试者。CPUT的平均基线创面体积为7.5±8.1 cm3, LPUT为9.2±10.2 cm3。CPUT与LPUT在伤口闭合(36.8% vs 19.0%, P = 0.21)或感染(10.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.60)方面无差异。CPUT和LPUT的平均伤口面积减少(75.9±32.3% vs 65.5±38.4%,P = 0.41)和平均体积减少(85.0±30.8% vs 79.9±31.9%,P = 0.61)均无差异。此外,在面积(P = 0.75)或体积(P = 0.43)的变化中,伤口闭合轨迹没有差异。冷冻保存和冻干保存的羊膜组织在复杂的糖尿病足创伤患者中提供了相似的结果。
Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Cryopreserved and Lyopreserved Umbilical Cord Tissue to Treat Complex Diabetic Foot Wounds.
To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm2 for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm2 for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm3 for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, P = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, P = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, P = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, P = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (P = .75) or volume (P = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.