Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To investigate the effectiveness of a new and low-cost negative pressure wound therapy (LC-NPWT) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).
UNASSIGNED: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from our inpatient clinic with Wagner grade 3 DFUs were given LC-NPWT or conventional wound dressings. The primary outcome was the wound healing rates. Complete wound healing, defined as complete re-epithelialisation of the wound, was recorded during the two months of follow-up. The definition of complete epidermis of the wound was that the skin was closed (100% re-epithelialisation), with no drainage or dressing. The secondary outcomes were the number of inpatient days and surgical procedures, and outcomes after hospital discharge. The wound score from the Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool and the levels of the inflammation factors procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were compared between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimate was used to examine the cumulative wound healing rate.
UNASSIGNED: The study cohort comprised 41 patients. The two-month wound healing rate was higher in patients in the LC-NPWT group than in the control group (15/21 (71.4%) versus 8/20 (40.0%), respectively; p=0.043). At the end of the two-month follow-up period, the cumulative wound healing rate was higher in the LC-NPWT group than in the control group (p=0.032). Patients in the LC-NPWT group had fewer inpatient days (19.3±3.84 versus 25.05±4.81; p<0.001) and shorter duration of antibiotic use (32.14±3.89 days versus 36.10±5.80 days; p=0.014) than those who received conventional wound dressings. There were significant improvements in mean wound score between the LC-NPWT group and the control group (p<0.001). After one week of treatment, the blood levels of PCT (0.03±0.30ng/ml versus 0.07±0.08ng/ml; p=0.039), CRP (14.55±13.40mg/l versus 24.71±18.10mg/l; p=0.047) and ESR (42.05±29.29mm/h versus 61.65±22.42mm/h; p=0.021) were lower in patients who received LC-NPWT than those who received conventional wound dressings.
UNASSIGNED: LC-NPWT is effective in the treatment of DFUs and provides a cheaper alternative for patients with DFUs that could potentially alleviate the economic distress these patients endure.
UNASSIGNED: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from our inpatient clinic with Wagner grade 3 DFUs were given LC-NPWT or conventional wound dressings. The primary outcome was the wound healing rates. Complete wound healing, defined as complete re-epithelialisation of the wound, was recorded during the two months of follow-up. The definition of complete epidermis of the wound was that the skin was closed (100% re-epithelialisation), with no drainage or dressing. The secondary outcomes were the number of inpatient days and surgical procedures, and outcomes after hospital discharge. The wound score from the Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool and the levels of the inflammation factors procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were compared between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival estimate was used to examine the cumulative wound healing rate.
UNASSIGNED: The study cohort comprised 41 patients. The two-month wound healing rate was higher in patients in the LC-NPWT group than in the control group (15/21 (71.4%) versus 8/20 (40.0%), respectively; p=0.043). At the end of the two-month follow-up period, the cumulative wound healing rate was higher in the LC-NPWT group than in the control group (p=0.032). Patients in the LC-NPWT group had fewer inpatient days (19.3±3.84 versus 25.05±4.81; p<0.001) and shorter duration of antibiotic use (32.14±3.89 days versus 36.10±5.80 days; p=0.014) than those who received conventional wound dressings. There were significant improvements in mean wound score between the LC-NPWT group and the control group (p<0.001). After one week of treatment, the blood levels of PCT (0.03±0.30ng/ml versus 0.07±0.08ng/ml; p=0.039), CRP (14.55±13.40mg/l versus 24.71±18.10mg/l; p=0.047) and ESR (42.05±29.29mm/h versus 61.65±22.42mm/h; p=0.021) were lower in patients who received LC-NPWT than those who received conventional wound dressings.
UNASSIGNED: LC-NPWT is effective in the treatment of DFUs and provides a cheaper alternative for patients with DFUs that could potentially alleviate the economic distress these patients endure.
摘要：
■研究一种新的低成本负压伤口疗法（LC-NPWT）治疗糖尿病足溃疡（DFU）的有效性。
■在这项回顾性队列研究中，我们住院诊所的Wagner3级DFU患者接受LC-NPWT或常规伤口敷料.主要结果是伤口愈合率。伤口完全愈合，定义为伤口的完全上皮化，在两个月的随访期间记录。伤口完整表皮的定义是皮肤闭合（100％再上皮化），没有排水或敷料。次要结果是住院天数和外科手术，出院后的结果。来自Bates-Jensen伤口评估工具的伤口评分和炎症因子降钙素原（PCT）的水平，比较两组患者的C反应蛋白(CRP)和血沉(ESR)。使用Kaplan-Meier存活估计来检查累积伤口愈合率。
■研究队列包括41名患者。LC-NPWT组患者的两个月伤口愈合率高于对照组（15/21（71.4％）与8/20（40.0％），分别为；p=0.043)。在两个月的随访期结束时，LC-NPWT组的累积伤口愈合率高于对照组（p=0.032）。与接受常规伤口敷料的患者相比，LC-NPWT组患者的住院天数较少（19.3±3.84对25.05±4.81；p<0.001），抗生素使用时间较短（32.14±3.89对36.10±5.80天；p=0.014）。LC-NPWT组和对照组之间的平均伤口评分有显著改善(p<0.001)。经过一周的治疗，PCT的血液水平（0.03±0.30ng/ml对0.07±0.08ng/ml;p=0.039），接受LC-NPWT的患者的CRP（14.55±13.40mg/l与24.71±18.10mg/l；p=0.047）和ESR（42.05±29.29mm/h与61.65±22.42mm/h；p=0.021）低于接受常规伤口敷料的患者。
■LC-NPWT可有效治疗DFU，并为DFU患者提供了一种更便宜的替代方案，有可能缓解这些患者所承受的经济困难。
■在这项回顾性队列研究中，我们住院诊所的Wagner3级DFU患者接受LC-NPWT或常规伤口敷料.主要结果是伤口愈合率。伤口完全愈合，定义为伤口的完全上皮化，在两个月的随访期间记录。伤口完整表皮的定义是皮肤闭合（100％再上皮化），没有排水或敷料。次要结果是住院天数和外科手术，出院后的结果。来自Bates-Jensen伤口评估工具的伤口评分和炎症因子降钙素原（PCT）的水平，比较两组患者的C反应蛋白(CRP)和血沉(ESR)。使用Kaplan-Meier存活估计来检查累积伤口愈合率。
■研究队列包括41名患者。LC-NPWT组患者的两个月伤口愈合率高于对照组（15/21（71.4％）与8/20（40.0％），分别为；p=0.043)。在两个月的随访期结束时，LC-NPWT组的累积伤口愈合率高于对照组（p=0.032）。与接受常规伤口敷料的患者相比，LC-NPWT组患者的住院天数较少（19.3±3.84对25.05±4.81；p<0.001），抗生素使用时间较短（32.14±3.89对36.10±5.80天；p=0.014）。LC-NPWT组和对照组之间的平均伤口评分有显著改善(p<0.001)。经过一周的治疗，PCT的血液水平（0.03±0.30ng/ml对0.07±0.08ng/ml;p=0.039），接受LC-NPWT的患者的CRP（14.55±13.40mg/l与24.71±18.10mg/l；p=0.047）和ESR（42.05±29.29mm/h与61.65±22.42mm/h；p=0.021）低于接受常规伤口敷料的患者。
■LC-NPWT可有效治疗DFU，并为DFU患者提供了一种更便宜的替代方案，有可能缓解这些患者所承受的经济困难。
