Wound repair and regeneration is a highly complex combination of matrix destruction and reorganization. Although major hurdles remain, advances during the past generation have improved the clinician’s armamentarium in the medical and surgical management of this problem. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature regarding the pragmatic use of three of the most commonly used advanced therapies: bioengineered tissue, negative-pressure wound therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, with a focus on the near-term future of wound healing, including stem cell therapy. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100(5): 385–394, 2010)
Vaporous Hyperoxia Therapy (VHTTM), a patented FDA-510 (k) cleared technology, is an adjunct therapy used in conjunction with standard wound care (SWC). VHT is said to improve the health of wounded tissue by administering a low-frequency, non-contact, non-thermal ionic anti-microbial hydrating mist alternating with concentrated topical oxygen therapy (TOT). VHT was used to treat 36 subjects with chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) that were previously treated unsuccessfully with SWC. The average age of DFU in the study was 11 months old and the average size was over 3 cm2. Wounds were either Wagner Grade 2 or 3 and most commonly on the plantar surface around the midfoot. Treatment consisted of twice weekly applications of VHT and wound debridement. Subjects were followed to wound closure, 20 weeks, or 40 treatments, whichever came first. The combination of SWC and VHT in the group that met and maintained compliance throughout the study period achieved an 83% DFU closure rate within a 20-week time period. The average time for DFU closure in this study was 9.4 weeks. Historical analysis of SWC shows a 30.9% healing rate of all wounds, not differentiating chronic wounds. Accordingly, SWC/VHT increases chronic diabetic foot ulcer healing rates by 2.85 times compared with SWC alone. The purpose of this study was two-fold: first, to observe the effect of VHT on healing rates and time to healing in previously nonhealing DFUs and second, to compare VHT with SWC, TOT and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and ultrasound therapies.
There is increasing pressure from industry to use advanced wound care products and technologies. Many are very expensive but promise to reduce overall costs associated with wound care. Compelling anecdotal evidence is provided that inevitably shows wounds that failed all other treatments but responded positively to the subject product. Evidence-based medicine is the standard by which physician-scientists must make their clinical care decisions. In an attempt to provide policy makers with the most current evidence on advanced wound care products, the Department of Veteran Affairs conducted an Evidence-based Synthesis Program review of advanced wound care products. This paper suggests how to take this information and apply it to policy to drive evidence-based care to improve outcomes and fiduciary responsibility.
The purpose of this article is to present reference guidelines to assist clinicians when treating diabetic patients with foot wounds. Diabetic patients with limb-threatening foot ulcers often have multiple coexisting medical conditions that frequently become impediments to the resolution of foot wounds. Each foot wound is unique and its etiology is multifactorial; therefore, each foot wound should be managed differently. The treatment algorithm presented in this article is divided into three categories: Algorithm I describes the treatment of septic foot wounds, which may be considered true podiatric surgical emergencies; Algorithm II describes the treatment of ischemic foot ulcers or gangrene with or without underlying osteomyelitis; and Algorithm III describes the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers with or without underlying osteomyelitis. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 92(6): 336-349, 2002)
The Internet offers many resources in the area of wound and ulcer care that are of potential interest to podiatric physicians and students. This article provides an overview of World Wide Web sites that contain factual information, management guidelines, and illustrations pertaining to various aspects of wound and ulcer care. Web sites that emphasize preventive care are also reviewed. Because the prudent use of antimicrobial therapy is an important part of wound care, a few sites that offer antibiotic information are described.
An updated selection of high-quality Internet resources related to wound and ulcer care is presented. Of potential use to the podiatric medical practitioner, educator, resident, and student, some Web sites that cover hyperbaric medicine, antibiotic use, and wound and ulcer prevention are also included. These Web sites have been evaluated on the basis of their potential to enhance the practice of podiatric medicine, in addition to contributing to the educational process. Readers who require a quick reference source to wound and ulcer care may find this report useful. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96(3): 264–268, 2006)
We conducted a post-hoc retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate overall costs of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT; V.A.C. Therapy; KCI USA, Inc, San Antonio, Texas) versus advanced moist wound therapy (AMWT) in treating grade 2 and 3 diabetic foot wounds during a 12-week therapy course.
Data from two study arms (NPWT [n = 169] or AMWT [n = 166]) originating from Protocol VAC2001-08 were collected from patient records and used as the basis of the calculations performed in our cost analysis.
A total of 324 patient records (NPWT = 162; AMWT = 162) were analyzed. There was a median wound area reduction of 85.0% from baseline in patients treated with NPWT compared to a 61.8% reduction in those treated with AMWT. The total cost for all patients, regardless of closure, was $1,941,472.07 in the NPWT group compared to $2,196,315.86 in the AMWT group. In patients who achieved complete wound closure, the mean cost per patient in the NPWT group was $10,172 compared to $9,505 in the AMWT group; the median cost per 1 cm2 of closure was $1,227 with NPWT and $1,695 with AMWT. In patients who did not achieve complete wound closure, the mean total wound care cost per patient in the NPWT group was $13,262, compared to $15,069 in the AMWT group. The median cost to close 1 cm2 in wounds that didn't heal using NPWT was $1,633, compared to $2,927 with AMWT.
Our results show greater cost effectiveness with NPWT versus AMWT in recalcitrant wounds that didn't close during a 12-week period, due to lower expenditures on procedures and use of health-care resources.