Analytical Study of Various Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot

A Raghavendran and RG Santhaseelan^*

^*Correspondence: RG Santhaseelan, Department of General Surgery, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, India, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

The increasing prevalence of diabetes in human brings many complications in their lifetime and the diabetic foot ulcer is one of them [1]. Diabetics constantly impair the physiological signaling and vascular network is being the main system affected by the onset of diabetics even at early ages. This hyperglycemia could be of micro vascular complications (such as nephropathy, neuropathy, and retinopathy) and macrovascular complications (such as coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral arterial disease) [2]. Diabetes increases the risk of producing noncurable ulcer as 15% in individuals and remains as the leading cause for non- traumatic amputation. The diabetic ulcers need effective management unless they may result in amputations [3-29].

The aim of the present study is to study the age and sex incidence in diabetic patients, to analyse the average duration for the development of foot ulcer and to evaluate the outcome of various dressings in management of diabetic foot among the patients with diabetic foot ulcer. The study was carried out in patients admitted in Sree Balaji Medical college and Hospital, Chennai from December 2015 to October 2016.

Materials and Methods

Inclusion criteria

All patients were classified according to depth ischemia classification. Patients in grade–Depth 0, 1, 2, 3 and ischemia A were included in the study. Appearance of healthy granulation tissue in the floor of the ulcer is taken as the end point for observation (Table 1).

Table 1: “The depth-ischmeia” classification of foot lesions.

About 80 patients were included in the study. These patients were allocated randomly into four groups – Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D which corresponded to saline, povidone-iodine, metronidazole, and eusol dressing respectively (Tables 2 and 3). Detailed history about the onset of diabetes, regularity of treatment (whether on OHA or Insulin) and follow up were elucidated. Detailed history about the present lesion – mode of onset and its progression were recorded. Detailed general examination and local examination were carried out in all patients and recorded. All patients underwent daily surgical wound debridement and daily dressing. All patients were given adequate bed rest.

Table 2: Study group.

Table 3: Time interval Vs. grade of lesion.

Results

Initially 108 patients were recruited for this study. About 80 patients were included in the study. 53 patients were male and 27 were female. 28 patients were excluded because during the course of their stay in hospital they either absconded or expired or went against medical advice. The study showed that risk non curable ulceration may start at 50-60 years (Table 4). mean (±SD) age of the participants was 53.52 ± 10.8 years. Of all cases, 53 (66%) were male and 27 (33%) and the results revealed that the male patients had more chances getting ulcers than female (Table 5). In our study, 62% of the patients had a positive history of diabetes mellitus. Rest, 38% of patients had no history of diabetes mellitus or who did not have knowledge about history of DM (Table 6). The duration of ulcer was longer in males than female patients (Table 7). 40% of males, in this study, suffered more than 10 years and 60% were for at least 5 years. Meanwhile, only, 20% the female patients had wound history for 10 years.

Table 4: Age incidence in diabetic ulcer patients.

Table 5: Sex incidence in diabetic ulcer patients.

Table 6: Family history in diabetic ulcer patients.

Table 7: Duration of ulcer in diabetic patients.

The diabetic ulcer required proper and regular management. In our study, the patients who regularly cared the ulcer suffered lesser than the ones with irregular management (Table 8). The questionnaire was based on AHA and insulin level management. The study revealed the significance of ulcer management. 75% of the patients in the study were used the physical exercises to manage the diabetes and they showed lesser severity than the sedentary ones (Table 9). Other, 25% patients showed severe ulcer complications due to the absence of physical activity. Precipitating cause was one of the significant criteria in managing diabetic complications (Table 10). 53% patients faced the ulcer by spontaneous reasons followed by accidental injury (27%). To assess the complications, we had also done the ulcer grading in diabetic patients (Table 11). 60% patients in the showed that they were in grade 2A followed by 3A (23%) and 1A (1A). 44% patients had wounds in toes followed by Metatarsal Head (36%). Table 12 showed the Non healed ulcer grading of the patients participated in the study. the diabetes and they showed lesser severity than the sedentary ones (Table 9). Other, 25% patients showed severe ulcer complications due to the absence of physical activity. Precipitating cause was one of the significant criteria in managing diabetic complications (Table 10). 53% patients faced the ulcer by spontaneous reasons followed by accidental injury (27%). To assess the complications, we had also done the ulcer grading in diabetic patients (Table 11). 60% patients in the showed that they were in grade 2A followed by 3A (23%) and 1A (1A). 44% patients had wounds in toes followed by Metatarsal Head (36%). Table 12 showed the Non healed ulcer grading of the patients participated in the study. Table 13 shows the site of ulcer in diabetic foot. Tables 14 and 15 showed the responsibilities from the patients. Patient’s responsibility is an important criterion for the progressive study. More than 70% of all groups responded positively to the study instructions. Table 16 shows the factors affecting the ulcer management in diabetic patients. shows the site of ulcer in diabetic foot. Tables 14 and 15 showed the responsibilities from the patients. Patient’s responsibility is an important criterion for the progressive study. More than 70% of all groups responded positively to the study instructions. Table 16 shows the factors affecting the ulcer management in diabetic patients.

Table 8: Regular and irregular management of ulcer in diabetic patients.

Table 9: Regular and irregular management of ulcer in diabetic patients.

Table 10: Precipitating cause for ulcer in diabetic patients.

Table 11: Grading the ulcer in diabetic patients.

Table 12: Grading the non-healing ulcer in diabetic patients.

Table 13: Site of Ulcer in diabetic foot.

Table 14: Responders Vs. Non-Responders.

Table 15: Outcome of non-responders.

Table 16: Factors affecting the ulcer management in diabetic patients.

Test of significance is carried in accordance with chi- square test and test results are compared in accordance with table of test of significance. The results were compared between the groups using statistical analysis. Tables 17 and 18 summarized the results between Saline versus Povidone iodine groups. The statistical anasis showed the the results were not significant (Chi-Square Test=Σ (O – E)2/E=3.19). The p value (>0.05) implied that the results are not significant. The results of Saline Vs Metronidazole comparison represented in Tables 19 and 20. Chi-Square Test implied that the results were not significant. (t=Σ (O–E)2/E=0.69, p>0.5 which implied the results are not significant. Similarly, other comparison analysis between the groups was resulted in not statistically significant inferences. The results were summarized in Tables 21-28. Since the tests are not significant Null Hypothesis is proved in this chi-square test, which shows one dressing is not superior when compared to other.

Table 17: Saline versus povidone iodine.

Table 18: Chi-square test for saline versus povidone iodine.

Table 19: Saline Vs. metronidazole.

Table 20: Chi-square test for saline vs. metronidazole.

Table 21: Saline Vs Eusol.

Table 22: Chi-square test for saline vs. eusol (Chi-Square Test=Σ (O – E)2/E=0.27 P Value is <0.5 which implies the results are not significant).

Table 23: Povidone Iodine Vs Metronidazole.

Table 24: Chi-square test for povidone iodine vs. metronidazole (Chi-Square Test=Σ (O – E)2/E=1.26 P Value is >0.5 which implies the results are not significant).

Table 25: Metronidazole Vs. eusol.

Table 26: Chi-square test for metronidazole vs. eusol (Chi-Square Test=Σ (O – E)2/E=1.74, P Value is <0.1 which implies the results are not significant).

Table 27: Povidone Iodine Vs. Eusol.

Table 28: Chi-square test for povidone iodine vs. eusol (Chi-Square Test=Σ (O – E)2/E=4.6, P Value is >0.05 which implies the results are not significant).

DISCUSSION

In the present study, 80 patients from Sree Balaji medical college and hospital were subjected detailed history examination and basic investigations. Our study showed the male were facing more complications than female in diabetic ulcer management. There was a direct relationship between ulcer severity and aging. Rossaneis et al. [30] also showed similar result in their study. In about 62% of patient’s positive family history of diabetic mellitus was present and 38% gives either no positive history or unaware about this condition. Our result was concordance ith the previous study [31]. The results from the present study also implied that longer the duration of disease, poor glycemic control and physical stress have a direct correlation with the development of foot ulcer, like the previous study by Oliver et al. [32].

In those patients who developed foot ulcer about 50% did not have any antecedent cause as a precipitating event. In the rest of the group accidental trivial injury that was left uncared, nail cutting, and previous lesion were found to be the precipitating cause. Spontaneous development of foot ulcer points towards the neuropathic changes which the patient is unaware till the ulcer develops. In the affected group most common site of occurrence was toes followed by metatarsal heads, heel, and dorsum of foot. All these indicate that the ulcer is more likely to develop in pressure areas [33]. In this study about 60% of the patients were in Grade 2A which implied patients with ulcer exposing joints and tendons without ischemia. Rest of the patients had Grade 1A or Grade 3A ulcer. Of the 80 patients participated in the study about 21 patients were allocated in Group A, 19 in Group B, 20 in Group C and 20 in Group D. All these patients were allocated randomly. Group A, B, C and D corresponded to Saline Dressing, Povidone Iodine Dressing, Metronidazole Dressing and Eusol Dressing respectively, but the results were not statistically between the groups. All the patients were subjected to daily surgical wound debridement, daily dressing and given complete bed rest with positional variation. The end point for the study was taken as appearance of healthy granulation tissue in the entire floor of ulcer.

Conclusion

In this study of 80 patients with diabetic foot ulcer from about 66% of the patients were male and 34% were female. Most of the patients were between 41 – 60 years of age with maximal clustering between 51 – 60 years of age. Duration of Diabetes Mellitus is an independent risk factor for the development of foot ulcer. Duration of Diabetes Mellitus for more than 5 – 10 years increase the risk of foot ulcer. Poor glycemic control and other risk factors have a direct relationship with the development of foot ulcer. Bed rest, adequate surgical wound debridement and nonirritant dressing is the mainstay of treatment of those foot ulcer without ischemia. Usage of Povidone Iodine, Eusol and Metronidazole did not offer any healing benefit when compared to normal saline dressing. Since diabetic foot has a multi factorial origin, multidisciplinary approach with holistic view forms the backbone for the management of diabetic foot.

Funding

No funding sources.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The encouragement and support from Bharath University, Chennai is gratefully acknowledged. For provided the laboratory facilities to carry out the research work.

References

1. Assal JP, Gfeller R, Ekoke JM. Patient education in diabetes. In recent trends in diabetic research, Stockholm. Almquuist and Wiskell International 1982; 276.
2. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/1042442644967438227/
3. Agarwal Eval JK. Peripheral vascular disease. NNDU 1996; 56-63.
4. Boulton A.J.M., Scarpello J.A.E. and Ward J.D.– Diabetologia Vol. 22 p.6 1984.
5. Boulton AJ, Scarpello JH, Ward JD. Venous oxygenation in the diabetic neuropathic foot: Evidence of arteriovenous shunting?. Diabetologia 1982; 22:6-8.
6. Boulton AJM, Jubrusly DB, Bowker JII, et al. Impaired vibratory perception and diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetic Med 1986; 3:335-337.
7. Boulton AJM. The importance of abnormal foot pressures and gait in causation of foot ulcers. In connor H, Boulton AJM, Ward JD Eds: The foot in diabetes. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons 1987; 11.
8. Bunt TJ, Holloway GA. TcPo2 as an accurate predictor of theraphyia limb salvage. Ann Vasc Sugery 1996; 10:224-227.
9. Birrer RB, Dellacorte MP, Grisafi PJ. Prevention and care of diabetic foot ulcers. Am Family Physician 1996; 53:601-611.
10. Hamlin CR, Kohn RR, Luschin JH. Apparent accelerated aging of human collagen in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 1975; 24:902-904.
11. https://www.worldcat.org/title/campbells-operative-orthopaedics/oclc/70929249
12. Cook T. MRI in the management of diabetic foot infection. Br J Surg 1996; 83:245–249.
13. Day JI. Patient education. How many recurrences be prevented. In Conner II, Boulton AJM, Ward JD Eds. The foot in Diabetes. Chichester, England, John Wiley & sons 1987; 135.
14. Dean E. The role of the radiologists in the diagnosis and treatment of the Diabetic foot. In Connor II, Boulton AJM, Ward JD. Eds: The foot in Diabetes-Chichester, England, John Wiley & sons 1987; 33.
15. Delbridge, L Ellis, CE Le Queane. Non Enzymetic Glucosylation of Keratin from diabetic foot. Br J Sur 1983; 70:305.
16. Delbridge I, Le Queane IP. Leg support for the post-operative protection of the heel in patients with diabetes mellitus. Br J Surg 1987; 72:87.
17. Edmonds ME. Watkins PJ. Intensive care of diabetic foot. Recent Adva Diabetes 1986.
18. https://www.routledge.com/Farquharsons-Textbook-of-Operative-General-Surgery/Farquharson-Hollingshead-Moran-Farquharson-Hollingshead-Moran/p/book/9781444175929
19. Frukberg RG, Kozak GP. The diabetic charcot foot. In Kozak GP, Campbell D, Hoar CS, et al. Eds: Management in/of diabetic foot problems. Philadelphia WB Saunders 1984; 103.
20. Frank W Logerfo, Gany W Gibbson. Vascular disease of the laver extremities in Diabetic Mellitus. Endocrinol Metabol 1996; 25:439–443.
21. Griffiths GD, WiemanTJ. Meticulous attention to foot care improves prognosis in diabetic ulceration of the foot sog. Surg Gynecol Obstetr 1992; 174:49 -51.
22. Guy RJC, Clark CA, Malcolm PN, et al. Evaluation of thermal and vibration sensation in diabetic neuropathy. Diabatologia 1985; 28:131–137.
23. Gventer M. Radiological evaluation of the diabetic foot. Brenner MA Eds: Management of the diabetic foot. Williams & Wiljins 1987; 48.
24. Garbalosa JC, Cavanagh PR, Wu G, et al. Foot function in diabetic patients after partial amputation. Foot Ankle Int 1996; 17:43-48.
25. Gill LH. Foot surgery in patients with diabetes. J Southern Orthop Assoc 1994; 3:261–267.
26. Gentzkow GD, Iwasaki SD, Hershon KS, et al. Use of dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 1996; 19:350-354.
27. https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?sectionid=192288322&bookid=2129
28. Kato H, Takada T, Kawamura T, et al. The reduction and redistribution of plantar pressures using foot orthoses in diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Practice 1996; 31:115-118.
29. https://www.bookdepository.com/Recent-Advances-Surgery-28-Irving-Taylor/9781853156106
30. Rossaneis MA, Haddad MD, Mathias TA, et al. Differences in foot self-care and lifestyle between men and women with diabetes mellitus. Revista Latino AM enfermagem 2016; 24.
31. Valdez R, Greenlund KJ, Khoury MJ, et al. Is family history a useful tool for detecting children at risk for diabetes and cardiovascular diseases? A public health perspective. Pediatrics 2007; 120:S78-86.
32. Oliver Tony I, Mesut Mutluoglu. Diabetic foot ulcer. Stat Pearls 2019.
33. Cowley MS, Boyko EJ, Shofer JB, et al. Foot ulcer risk and location in relation to prospective clinical assessment of foot shape and mobility among persons with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Practice 2008; 82:226-232.