Diabetic wounds and artificial intelligence: A mini-review

Artificial intelligence in wound care: diagnosis, assessment and treatment of hard-to-heal wounds: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The effective assessment of wounds, both acute and hard-to-heal, is an important component in the delivery by wound care practitioners of efficacious wound care for patients. Improved wound diagnosis, optimising wound treatment regimens, and enhanced prevention of wounds aid in providing patients with a better quality of life (QoL). There is significant potential for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health-related areas such as wound care. However, AI-based systems remain to be developed to a point where they can be used clinically to deliver high-quality wound care. We have carried out a narrative review of the development and use of AI in the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of hard-to-heal wounds. We retrieved 145 articles from several online databases and other online resources, and 81 of them were included in this narrative review. Our review shows that AI application in wound care offers benefits in the assessment/diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of acute and hard-to-heal wounds. As well as offering patients the potential of improved QoL, AI may also enable better use of healthcare resources.

Comparative study on the efficacy of PRP gel and UC-MSCs gel as adjuvant therapies in the treatment of DFU wounds

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a common and serious complication of diabetes, and its treatment is challenging. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) gel have been concerned as new therapies for DFU in recent years, and comparative studies on the efficacy and mechanisms of these methods, however, are rarely reported.

METHODS

Thirty patients with DFU were selected and divided into the PRP group and the UC-MSCs group, and wound healing, foot blood vessels (ABI index), infection index (CRP), neuropathy symptoms (TCSS score), and foot skin temperature before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. SPSS 21.0 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The results showed that the efficacy of the UC-MSCs gel group was significantly better than that of the PRP group in terms of wound healing rate, time to complete wound closure, ABI index, CRP level and TCSS score. No statistically significant difference in foot skin temperature was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of UC-MSCs gel is significantly superior to that of PRP gel in the treatment of DFU, with shortened time to complete wound closure, increased wound healing rate, better pain and infection control, and improved vascular and neurological symptoms.