The role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers - A literature review

Abstract

Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFUs) are chronic foot wounds, in a person with diabetes, which are associated with peripheral arterial insufficiency and/or peripheral neuropathy of the lower limb. Recent UK audit figures report that approximately 50–60 % of DFUs remain unhealed after 12 weeks. Previous research has suggested that ischaemia plays a key role in the pathophysiology of many chronic wounds, including DFUs. For this reason, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HOT) has been investigated. The study aimed to investigate 1) Current understanding of the physiology of normal wound healing and the pathological mechanisms that occur in DFUs to interrupt these processes; 2) Effectiveness of current DFU treatment approaches; 3) Effectiveness from clinical trials and meta-analyses for any demonstrated therapeutic benefits of HOT in the treatment of DFUs, 4) Patient selection criteria for HOT, and patients who stand to benefit most from treatment.

The review found that wound healing is a complex process, involving many cells and signalling molecules, and it remains incompletely understood. However, current evidence suggests that hyperglycaemia, hypoxia, chronic inflammation (due to infection, immune-cell dysfunction or other causes), peripheral neuropathy, and macro- and micro-vascular dysfunction may all adversely affect DFU healing. The review found that current NICE guidelines do not approve HOT therapy in the UK for DFU's, despite encouraging clinical research findings. HOT shows theoretical promise and has been successfully used in the treatment of individual DFUs for several decades. Despite this, there remains a lack of strong clinical evidence of benefits to encourage HOT's wider use. The review found that there were four important patient selection criteria for HOT treatment, including glycaemic control, possible contraindications and complications associated with treatment, ulcer severity and resistance to first and second line treatments. The review concluded that further high-quality clinical research is needed to improve the evidence base.