比较冷冻和冻干脐带组织治疗复杂糖尿病足伤的随机临床试验。

Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone
{"title":"比较冷冻和冻干脐带组织治疗复杂糖尿病足伤的随机临床试验。","authors":"Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone","doi":"10.1177/15347346241273282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm<sup>2</sup> for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm<sup>2</sup> for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm<sup>3</sup> for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, <i>P</i> = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, <i>P</i> = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, <i>P</i> = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, <i>P</i> = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (<i>P</i> = .75) or volume (<i>P</i> = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":" ","pages":"15347346241273282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Cryopreserved and Lyopreserved Umbilical Cord Tissue to Treat Complex Diabetic Foot Wounds.\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence A Lavery, Mehmet A Suludere, Matthew J Johnson, Amanda L Killeen, Katherine M Raspovic, Peter A Crisologo, Arthur N Tarricone\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15347346241273282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm<sup>2</sup> for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm<sup>2</sup> for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm<sup>3</sup> for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, <i>P</i> = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, <i>P</i> = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, <i>P</i> = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, <i>P</i> = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (<i>P</i> = .75) or volume (<i>P</i> = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The international journal of lower extremity wounds\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15347346241273282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The international journal of lower extremity wounds\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241273282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241273282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比较冷冻保留(CPUT)和冷冻保留脐带组织(LPUT)治疗复杂糖尿病手术创面的感染发生率、创面愈合和创面愈合时间。这项为期12周的单盲随机临床试验比较了冷冻保存和冷冻保存羊膜脐带组织治疗复杂的糖尿病足伤。LPUT或CRAT在基线时应用,四周后再次应用。我们招募了有uta2 - d和a3 - d伤口的受试者(深度至肌腱、肌肉或骨骼并感染和/或PAD),排除了CPUT的ABI为2的受试者和LPUT的ABI为11.7±7.0 cm2的受试者。CPUT的平均基线创面体积为7.5±8.1 cm3, LPUT为9.2±10.2 cm3。CPUT与LPUT在伤口闭合(36.8% vs 19.0%, P = 0.21)或感染(10.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.60)方面无差异。CPUT和LPUT的平均伤口面积减少(75.9±32.3% vs 65.5±38.4%,P = 0.41)和平均体积减少(85.0±30.8% vs 79.9±31.9%,P = 0.61)均无差异。此外,在面积(P = 0.75)或体积(P = 0.43)的变化中,伤口闭合轨迹没有差异。冷冻保存和冻干保存的羊膜组织在复杂的糖尿病足创伤患者中提供了相似的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Cryopreserved and Lyopreserved Umbilical Cord Tissue to Treat Complex Diabetic Foot Wounds.

To compare the incidence of infection, wound closure and time to wound closure in patients treated with cryopreserved (CPUT) and lyopreserved umbilical tissue (LPUT) in complex diabetic surgical wounds. This single-blinded 12-week randomized clinical trial compared cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic cord tissue to treat complex diabetic foot wounds. LPUT or CRAT was applied at baseline and again after four weeks. We enrolled subjects with UT2A-D and 3A-D wounds (depth to tendon, muscle, or bone with infection and/or PAD) and excluded subjects with ABI < 0.5 or TBI < 0.3, untreated osteomyelitis, and autoimmune diseases. We used a 3-D camera to evaluate wound area and volume. The mean baseline wound areas were 12.9 ± 10.7 cm2 for CPUT and 11.7 ± 7.0 cm2 for LPUT. The mean baseline wound volume was 7.5 ± 8.1 for CPUT and 9.2 ± 10.2 cm3 for LPUT. There was no difference between CPUT and LPUT in wound closure (36.8% vs 19.0%, P = .21) or infection (10.5% vs 4.8%, P = .60). There was no difference in mean wound area reduction between CPUT and LPUT (75.9 ± 32.3% vs 65.5 ± 38.4%, P = .41), nor in mean volume reduction (85.0 ± 30.8% vs 79.9 ± 31.9%, P = .61). In addition, there was no difference in wound closure trajectories for changes in area (P = .75) or volume (P = .43). Cryopreserved and lyopreserved amniotic tissue provided similar results in patients with complex diabetic foot wounds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long-term Recurrence Risk of Diabetic Foot Ulcers After Healing: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study on the Influence of Hemodialysis and Amputation Levels. Overweight yet Undernourished: A Common Juxtaposition in the Specialist Diabetes Foot Service. Diabetic Foot Amputations: Engagement Still Needed to Improve Outcomes. Nanotechnological Advances in Burn Wound Care: Silver Sulfadiazine-Loaded Nanosuspension-Based Chitosan-Incorporated Nanogel for Partial Thickness Burns. Diagnostic Significance of Serum VEGF, bFGF, and Wound Tissue EGFR in Diabetic Chronic Refractory Wounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1