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.
Lucia Michailidis, S. Bergin, T. Haines, Cylie M. Williams
{"title":"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.","authors":"Lucia Michailidis, S. Bergin, T. Haines, Cylie M. Williams","doi":"10.25270/OWM.2018.9.3946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Management of diabetes-related foot ulcers often involves debridement of devitalized tissue, but evidence regarding the most effective debridement method is limited.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nA systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical sharp debridement (NSSD) versus low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) for diabetes-related foot ulceration in adults.\n\n\nMETHOD\nPublished studies (earliest date available to April 2017) comparing healing outcomes of LFUD- and NSSD-treated foot ulcers in adults were considered. The quality of publications that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the PEDro scale, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to compare percentage healed and percentage of ulcer size reduction.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf the 259 publications identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria but 2 of the 4 did not contain sufficient patient outcomes details for meta-analysis, leaving a sample size of 173 patients. Outcome data for the 2 studies included percentage of ulcers healed between the 2 debridement methods. This difference was not significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.76-1.11). The risk of bias for both studies was low.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nNo difference in healing outcomes between NSSD and LFUD debridement of diabetic foot ulcers was found. Well-designed, controlled clinical studies are needed to address the current paucity of studies examining the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of debridement methods.","PeriodicalId":54656,"journal":{"name":"Ostomy Wound Management","volume":"64 9 1","pages":"39-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ostomy Wound Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/OWM.2018.9.3946","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Management of diabetes-related foot ulcers often involves debridement of devitalized tissue, but evidence regarding the most effective debridement method is limited.
PURPOSE
A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical sharp debridement (NSSD) versus low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) for diabetes-related foot ulceration in adults.
METHOD
Published studies (earliest date available to April 2017) comparing healing outcomes of LFUD- and NSSD-treated foot ulcers in adults were considered. The quality of publications that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the PEDro scale, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to compare percentage healed and percentage of ulcer size reduction.
RESULTS
Of the 259 publications identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria but 2 of the 4 did not contain sufficient patient outcomes details for meta-analysis, leaving a sample size of 173 patients. Outcome data for the 2 studies included percentage of ulcers healed between the 2 debridement methods. This difference was not significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.76-1.11). The risk of bias for both studies was low.
CONCLUSION
No difference in healing outcomes between NSSD and LFUD debridement of diabetic foot ulcers was found. Well-designed, controlled clinical studies are needed to address the current paucity of studies examining the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of debridement methods.
期刊介绍:
Ostomy/Wound Management was founded in March of 1980 as "Ostomy Management." In 1985, this small journal dramatically expanded its content and readership by embracing the overlapping disciplines of ostomy care, wound care, incontinence care, and related skin and nutritional issues and became the premier journal of its kind. Ostomy/Wound Managements" readers include healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines. Today, our readers benefit from contemporary and comprehensive review and research papers that are practical, clinically oriented, and cutting edge. Each published article undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review by members of both the Editorial Advisory Board and the Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel.