Managing diabetic foot ulcers

Efficacy and safety of neutral pH superoxidised solution in severe diabetic foot infections

The use of antiseptics in wound care is often controversial and there is definitely a need for a non toxic, highly disinfective agent. This study assessed the efficacy of a neutral pH superoxidised aqueous solution (NpHSS) for infection control, odour reduction and surrounding skin and tissue damage on infected diabetic foot ulcerations. From November 2003 to March 2004, 45 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomised into a single-blind clinical trial comparing NpHSS (intervention group; n = 21) versus conventional disinfectant (control group; n = 16). All patients received comprehensive care including surgical debridement as appropriate, moist wound care, intensive glucose control and broad spectrum antibiotics. Treatment groups were matched in terms of sex, age (61.9 +/- 11.9 versus 67.8 +/- 11.6), years of diabetes duration (16.4 +/- 8.1 versus 17 +/- 10.2), obesity, HgAlc (7.1 +/- 2 versus 6.7 +/- 1.8), initial fasting glycaemia (163 +/- 59 versus 152 +/- 65.8 mg/dl), ulcer duration/week (13.7 +/- 24 versus 15.1 +/- 16.3), B/A Index (0.9 +/- 0.5 versus 1.14 +/- 0.7), depth and extent of infection/periwound cellulitis (groups B and C of the Tampico Hospital Classification) as well as aetiology (P = 0.647). Odour reduction was achieved in all NpHSS patients (100% versus 25%; P < 0.01) and surrounding cellulitis diminished (P < 0.001) in 17 patients (80.9% versus 43.7%). Nineteen patients in the NpHSS group showed advancement to granulating tissue stage (90.4% versus 62.5%; P = 0.05) with significantly less tissue toxicity (94% versus 31.2%; P < 0.01). A non toxic, NpHSS, as part of a comprehensive care regimen, may be more efficacious in infection control, odour and erythema reduction than conventional disinfectants in treatment of diabetic foot infections.

Best-practice algorithms for the use of a bilayered living cell therapy (ApligrafR) in the treatment of lower-extremity ulcers

Tissue-engineered skin substitutes such as Apligraf have emerged over the past 20 years as among the most carefully studied and efficacious of the advanced wound modalities. These products have been proven as effective enhancements to general wound care, promoting wound closure particularly in instances where conventional wound care fails. Marketed for hard-to-heal wounds since 1998, Apligraf has become part of standard wound care in many wound centers across the United States. Despite this situation, few general wound care guidelines incorporate advanced and active wound-healing technologies, such as tissue-engineered skin products. Because of this deficiency, appropriate patient selection and proper use of these product remain largely unaddressed within the general wound care community. Here, we describe the development of guidelines surrounding optimal use of the bilayered living cell therapy, Apligraf, in the treatment of the two types of lower extremity ulcers for which the product is FDA approved: venous leg ulcer and diabetic foot ulcer. The guidelines detailed in this article focus on the identification and selection of patients who are at risk for failure of standard wound care therapy and thus appropriate for Apligraf treatment. The intended audience for these guidelines is the general wound care practitioner, for whom the developed treatment algorithms and accompanying figure legends should provide practical, user-friendly direction simplifying both patient selection and appropriate use of Apligraf within the context of good wound-healing practice.