A Systematic Review to Compare the Effect of Low-frequency Ultrasonic Versus Nonsurgical Sharp Debridement on the Healing Rate of Chronic Diabetes-related Foot Ulcers

A deeper look at low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement in the clinical management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers

The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.

The role of debridement in wound bed preparation in chronic wound: A narrative review

Objective

To provide an overview of the types of wound debridement and update the available scientific consensus on the effect of wound debridement.

Methods

The articles were searched through CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Medline database for relevant articles on all types of wound debridement. Articles included were all systematic review on the effectiveness of wound debridement-related outcome, published within the year 2017 until Aug 2021, in English.

Results

A total of seven scientific articles had been selected for review out of 318 screened. The authors reviewed a total of 318 titles and abstracts related to wound debridement effectiveness. Seven articles that were selected were narratively reviewed by two authors. The findings of the review were organized into autolytic, enzymatic, sharp, surgical, biological, and mechanical debridement methods and includes the advantages and disadvantages of each. The author further explored on the role of wound debridement according to wound bed preparation model. Articles were synthesized and organized based on the authors, year, total studies included in the systematic review, study range of year, total sample, debridement method, wound types, and findings.

Conclusion

Maggot debridement therapy showed a consistent finding in terms of effectiveness in debriding chronic wounds. The newer debridement method includes hydro-surgery, low-frequency ultrasonic and enzymatic collagenase debridement were getting more attention due to faster wound bed preparation and less painful. However, these newer method of debridements showed inconclusive findings and the patient safety was not clearly defined. A higher level of review is warranted in the future study.

•

Maggot debridement therapy (MDT) showed a consistent positive effect in treating chronic wounds.

•

New debridement methods that gaining more attention includes hydro-surgery, low-frequency ultrasonic and enzymatic collagenase debridement.

•

Newer debridement method reported faster wound bed preparation and deemed to be less pain.

•

Patient safety was not clearly defined in these newer debridement methods.

Cellular Proliferation, Dermal Repair, and Microbiological Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Assisted Wound Debridement (UAW) Versus Standard Wound Treatment in Complicated Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU): An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

We aimed to evaluate the effects of ultrasound-assisted wound (UAW) debridement on cellular proliferation and dermal repair in complicated diabetic foot ulcers as compared to diabetic foot ulcers receiving surgical/sharp wound debridement. A randomized controlled trial was performed involving 51 outpatients with complicated diabetic foot ulcers that either received surgical debridement (n = 24) or UAW debridement (n = 27) every week during a six-week treatment period. Compared to patients receiving surgical debridement, patients treated with UAW debridement exhibited significantly improved cellular proliferation, as determined by CD31 staining, Masson’s trichrome staining, and actin staining. Bacterial loads were significantly reduced in the UAW debridement group compared to the surgical group (UAW group 4.27 ± 0.37 day 0 to 2.11 ± 0.8 versus surgical group 4.66 ± 1.21 day 0 to 4.39 ± 1.24 day 42; p = 0.01). Time to healing was also significantly lower (p = 0.04) in the UAW group (9.7 ± 3.8 weeks) compared to the surgical group (14.8 ± 12.3 weeks), but both groups had similar rates of patients that were healed after six months of follow-up (23 patients (85.1%) in the UAW group vs. 20 patients (83.3%) in the surgical group; p = 0.856). We propose that UAW debridement could be an effective alternative when surgical debridement is not available or is contraindicated for use on patients with complicated diabetic foot ulcers.