METHOD: A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was conducted based on the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) to retrieve publications of different levels of evidence in order to evaluate outcomes of the use of TLC-NOSF dressings.
RESULTS: A total of 21 publications of different levels, ranging from double-blind randomised control trials to case reports, involving over 12,000 patients, were identified through PubMed, with a further eight publications through Google Scholar and two publications through Cochrane Library. A total of seven results were omitted due to the lack of relevance or repetition.
CONCLUSION: All the evidence provided suggest that these dressings provide clinicians with an evidence-based option for the management of chronic wounds; that the TLC-NOSF dressings are beneficial in promoting the healing process, reducing healing times, enhancing patients' HRQoL, and in allowing a more cost-effective procedure.
OBJECTIVE: To date, numerous conventional wound dressings are employed for the management of DFUs but there is a lack of absolute and versatile choice. The current review was therefore aimed to summarize and critically discuss the available evidences related to pharmaceutical and therapeutic viability of polymer-based dressings for the treatment of DFUs.
RESULTS: A versatile range of naturally-originated polymers including chitosan (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), cellulose, alginate, dextran, collagen, gelatin, elastin, fibrin and silk fibroin have been utilized for the treatment of DFUs. These polymers have been used in the form of hydrogels, films, hydrocolloids, foams, membranes, scaffolds, microparticles, and nanoparticles. Moreover, the wound healing viability and clinical applicability of various mutually modified, semi-synthetic or synthetic polymers have also been critically discussed.
CONCLUSION: In summary, this review enlightens the most recent developments in polymer-based wound dressings with special emphasis on advanced polymeric biomaterials, innovative therapeutic strategies and delivery approaches for the treatment of DFUs.
METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted for 12 weeks among older adults with diabetes in elderly care facility in Peninsular Malaysia. Six elderly care facility were randomly allocated by an independent person into two groups (intervention and control). The intervention group (three elderly care facility) received a health education program on foot self-care behaviour while the control group (three elderly care facility) received standard care. Participants were assessed at baseline, and at week-4 and week-12 follow-ups. The primary outcome was foot-self-care behaviour. Foot care self-efficacy (efficacy expectation), foot care outcome expectation, knowledge of foot care and quality of life were the secondary outcomes. Data were analysed with Mixed Design Analysis of Variance using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0.
RESULTS: 184 respondents were recruited but only 76 met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Foot self-care behaviour, foot care self-efficacy (efficacy expectation), foot care outcome expectation and knowledge of foot care improved in the intervention group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). However, some of these improvements did not significantly differ compared to the control group for QoL physical symptoms and QoL psychosocial functioning (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The self-efficacy enhancing program improved foot self-care behaviour with respect to the delivered program. It is expected that in the future, the self-efficacy theory can be incorporated into diabetes education to enhance foot self-care behaviour for elderly with diabetes living in other institutional care facilities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616000210471.
METHODS: We carried out a prospective analysis based on the DFI samples collected from 2016 till 2018. Specimens were cultured with optimal techniques in addition to antibiotic susceptibility based on recommendations from The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). A total of 1040 pathogens were isolated with an average of 1.9 pathogens per lesion in 550 patients who were identified with having DFIs during this interval.
RESULTS: A higher percentage of Gram-negative pathogens (54%) were identified as compared with Gram-positive pathogens (33%) or anaerobes (12%). A total of 85% of the patients were found to have polymicrobial infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19%), Staphylococcus aureus (11%) and Bacteroides species (8%) appeared to be the predominant organisms isolated. In the management of Gram-positive bacteria, the most efficacious treatment was seen with the use of Vancomycin, while Imipenem and Amikacin proved to be effective in the treatment of Gram-negative bacteria.
CONCLUSION: DFI's are common among Malaysians with diabetes, with a majority of cases displaying polymicrobial aetiology with multi-drug resistant isolates. The data obtained from this study will be valuable in aiding future empirical treatment guidelines in the treatment of DFIs. This study investigated the microbiology of DFIs and their resistance to antibiotics in patients with DFIs that were managed at a Tertiary Care Centre in Malaysia.
METHOD: Eligible patients with chronic wounds were enrolled between March and June 2016, from the Wound Care Unit, Hospital Kuala Lumpur in this consecutive case series. Standard wound care was performed with microcurrent as an adjunct therapy. Each patient was treated with an anti-inflammatory frequency, followed by a vasodilation frequency, while having their wounds cleansed during each dressing change. Patients were loaned a home-microcurrent device to treat themselves three times daily using a tissue repair frequency for four weeks.
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients with chronic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers, were recruited. During the four-week treatment period, all patients had a reduction in wound size, with 16 having complete wound closure. All 89 of the 100 patients who complained of pain, associated with their wound, experienced reduced pain scores, with 11 being pain-free at the end of the four-week period. There was significant reduction (p<0.001) in both mean pain score and mean wound area during the treatment period, as well as improvements in other parameters, such as reduction in inflammatory symptoms (leg swelling, foot stiffness), increased vasodilation (skin discolouration, leg heaviness, early morning erection, sensation), improvement in sleep quality, gait, and frequency of bowel movement. No adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study show there was significant reduction in wound area and pain score during the treatment period. The ease of use of microcurrent devices would advocate its use in accelerating wound healing.
Materials and Methods: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups.
Results: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05).
Conclusion: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.
Materials and Methods: Sixty-three diabetic foot patients admitted from June 15, 2019 to February 15, 2020. Methods included one-on-one interview for clinico-demographic data, physical examination to determine the classification. Patients were followed-up and outcomes were determined. Pearson Chi-square or Fisher's Exact determined association between clinico-demographic data, the classifications, and outcomes. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve determined predictive abilities of classification systems and paired analysis compared the curves. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) values used to compare the prediction accuracy. Analysis was set at 95% CI.
Results: Results showed hypertension, duration of diabetes, and ambulation status were significantly associated with major amputation. WIFi showed the highest AUC of 0.899 (p = 0.000). However, paired analysis showed AUC differences between WIFi, Wagner, and University of Texas classifications by grade were not significantly different from each other.
Conclusion: The WIFi, Wagner, and University of Texas classification systems are good predictors of major amputation with WIFi as the most predictive.
Materials and Methods: In two tertiary care selected hospitals, the included diabetic patients were randomly divided into two study arms. In the control group, 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment from hospitals were included. However, in the intervention group, those 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment along with counseling sessions from pharmacists under the Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (DMTAC) program were included. The study continued for 1 year, and there were four follow-up visits for both study arms. A prevalidated data collection form was used to measure the improvement in predictors of diabetic foot in included patients. Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program, version 24.0.
Results: With the average decrease of 1.97% of HbA1c values in the control group and 3.43% in the intervention group, the univariate and multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference between both of the study arms in the improvement of predictors belonging to the diabetic foot (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients without any signs and symptoms of the diabetic foot in the intervention group was 91.7%, which increased from 42.3% at baseline (P < 0.05). However, this proportion in the control group was 76.9% at the fourth follow-up, from 48.3% at baseline (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: A statistically significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of diabetic foot was observed in the intervention group at the end of 1 year. The progression of diabetic foot was significantly decreased in the pharmacist intervention group.