Wu S, Armstrong DG: Risk assessment of the diabetic foot and wound. Int Wound J 2: 17, 2005.
Raghav A, Ahmad Khan Z, Labala RK, et al.: Financial burden of diabetic foot ulcers to world: a progressive topic to discuss always. Ther Adv Endocrinal Metab 9: 29, 2018.
Han G, Ceilley R: Chronic wound healing: a review of current management and treatments. Adv Ther 34: 599, 2017.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National diabetes statistics report: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html. Accessed January 24, 2023.
American Diabeters Association: Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2012. Diabetes Care 36: 1033, 2013.
Everett E, Mathioudakis N: Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1411: 153, 2018.
Vigersky RA, Fitzner K, Levinson J, et al.: Barriers and potential solutions to providing optimal guideline-driven care to patients with diabetes in the US. Diabetes Care 36: 3843, 2013.
Paquette D, Falanga V: Leg ulcers. Clin Geriatr Med 18: 77, 2002.
Walsh JW, Hoffstad OJ, Sullivan DJ, et al.: Association of diabetic foot ulcer and death in a population-based cohort from the United Kingdom. Diabet Med 33: 1493, 2016.
Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, et al.: 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 54: e132, 2012.
Mills JL Sr, Conte MS, Armstrong DG, et al.: The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Threatened Limb Classification System: risk stratification based on wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI). J Vasc Surg 59: 220, 2014.
Ward R, Dunn J, Clavijo L, et al.: Outcomes of critical limb ischemia in an urban, safety net hospital population with high WIfI amputation scores. Ann Vasc Surg 38: 84, 2017.
Margolisa DJ, Bilker W, Santanna J: Venous leg ulcer: incidence and prevalence in the elderly. J Am Acad Dermatol 46: 381, 2002.
Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P: Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. Int Wound J 15: 29, 2018.
Abbade LPF, Lastória S: Venous ulcer: epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and treatment. Int J Dermatol 44: 449, 2015.
Wu SC, Marston W, Armstrong DG: Wound care: the role of advanced wound-healing technologies. JAPMA 100: 385, 2010.
Oganesyan G, Jarell AD, Srivastava M, et al.: Efficacy and complication rates of full-thickness skin graft repair of lower extremity wounds after Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg 39: 1334, 2013.
Armstrong DG, Bulton AJM, Bus SA: Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N Engl J Med 376: 2367, 2017.
MacEwan MR, MacEwan S, Kovacs TR, et al.: What makes the optimal wound healing material? A review of current science and introduction of a synthetic nanofabricated wound care scaffold. Cureus 9: e1736, 2017.
Driver VR, Lavery LA, Reyzelman AM, et al.: A clinical trial of Integra Template for diabetic foot ulcer treatment. Wound Repair Regen 23: 891, 2015.
Niezgoda JA, Van Gils CC, Frykberg RG, et al.: Randomized clinical trial comparing OASIS Wound Matrix to Regranex Gel for diabetic ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care 18: 258, 2015.
Bianchi C, Cazzell S, Vayser D, et al.: A multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (EpiFix) allograft for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Int Wound J 15: 114, 2018.
Prompers L, Hujiberts M, Apelqvist J, et al.: High prevalence of ischaemia, infection and serious comorbidity in patients with diabetic foot disease in Europe. Baseline results from the Eurodiale study. Diabetologia 50: 18, 2017.
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Murdoch DP, et al.: Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s diabetic foot infection classification system. Clin Infect Dis 44: 562, 2007.
Lavery LA, Peters EJG, Williams JR, et al.: Reevaluating the way we classify the diabetic foot: restructuring the diabetic foot risk classification system of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Care 31: 154, 2008.
Van Netten LL, Price PE, Lavery LA, et al.: Prevention of foot ulcers in the at-risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32: 84, 2016.
Background: Chronic, nonhealing wounds are a growing health-care problem in the United States, affecting more than 6.5 million patients annually and costing the health-care system over $25 billion. Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs), are often difficult to treat, and patients commonly fail to heal even with the most advanced therapies. The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and utility of the synthetic hybrid-scale fiber matrix in the treatment of complex chronic nonhealing lower-extremity ulcers refractory to advanced therapies.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of 20 patients with a total of 23 wounds (DFUs, n = 18; VLUs, n = 5) who underwent treatment using the synthetic hybrid-scale fiber matrix was conducted. The majority of ulcers (78%) included in this study were refractory to one or multiple previous advanced wound therapies and therefore considered difficult-to-heal ulcers with high failure risk for future therapies.
Results: Subjects had a mean wound age of 16 months and presented with 132 secondary comorbidities and 65 failed interventions and therapies. Treatment of VLUs with the synthetic matrix resulted in complete closure of 100% of the wounds over 244 ± 153 days with an average of 10.8 ± 5.5 applications. Treatment of DFUs with the synthetic matrix resulted in complete closure of 94% of the wounds over 122 ± 69 days with 6.7 ± 3.9 applications.
Conclusions: Treatment with the synthetic hybrid-scale fiber matrix resulted in the closure of 96% of complex chronic ulcers refractory to existing therapies. The inclusion of the synthetic hybrid-scale fiber matrix in wound care programs provides a critical and needed solution for costly, long-standing refractory wounds.