Vacuum Dressing And Topical Antibacterial Dressing Among Patients With Diabetic Ulcer: A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i2.1591Keywords:
Diabetic Foot Ulcer, Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, Vacuum-Assisted Closure, Wound Healing, Granulation TissueAbstract
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent a significant complication of diabetes mellitus, often leading to prolonged hospitalisation, amputations, and increased morbidity. Effective wound healing strategies are crucial in reducing the burden of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), particularly in resource-constrained settings such as Pakistan.AFG Objective: To compare the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) dressing and topical antibacterial dressing in promoting granulation tissue formation and reducing healing time in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, University of Lahore Teaching Hospital, from July 2024 to December 2024. A total of 60 patients with clinically diagnosed diabetic foot ulcers were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A received a VAC dressing, while Group B received a topical antibacterial dressing (fusidic acid followed by saline gauze). Outcomes measured included the formation of granulation tissue within two weeks and the duration of complete wound healing. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of participants was 56.2 ± 9.4 years. Granulation tissue formation within two weeks was significantly higher in the VAC group (86.7%) compared to the topical dressing group (60%) (p = 0.018). The mean healing duration was shorter in the VAC group (12.3 ± 3.4 days) than in the topical group (17.6 ± 4.2 days) (p<0.001). Stratified analysis showed significantly better outcomes in patients with higher BMI, poor glycemic control, and non-smokers in the VAC group. Conclusion: VAC dressing significantly enhances granulation tissue formation and reduces healing time in patients with diabetic foot ulcers compared to topical antibacterial dressing. Its implementation in tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan could improve wound healing outcomes and reduce the burden of diabetic complications.
Downloads
References
Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, Tang S, Zhu D, Bi Y. Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2017;49(2):106–116.
Basit A, Fawwad A, Hakeem R, Ahmedani MY, Hydrie MZ. Prevalence of diabetic foot ulcers in Pakistan: a multicenter study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2009;59(11):687–692.
Gul A, Haider I, Khan SA, Hussain S, Parveen N. Frequency and outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers in hospitalized patients at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(2):164–168.
Jeffcoate WJ, Harding KG. Diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet. 2003;361(9368):1545–1551.
Younis N, Mehmood K, Asad MJ. Current trends and challenges in diabetic foot care in Pakistan. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(5):1571–1575.
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9498):1704–1710.
Vuerstaek JD, Vainas T, Wuite J, Nelemans P, Neumann MH, Veraart JC. State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure with modern wound dressings. Arch Surg. 2006;141(5):427–433.
Liu S, He C, Cai Y, Xing Q. Negative pressure wound therapy for diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2021;49(4):300060521999959.
Huang C, Leavitt T, Bayer LR, Orgill DP. Effect of negative pressure wound therapy on wound healing. Curr Probl Surg. 2014;51(7):301–331.
Ravari H, Modaghegh MH, Kazemzadeh GH, Vatanchi AM, Shafii M. Comparison of vacuum-assisted closure and moist wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J Wound Care. 2014;23(12):584–587.
Mostafalu P, Kiaee G, Shi Y, et al. A textile dressing for temporal and dosage controlled drug delivery. Adv Funct Mater. 2017;27(1):1604464.
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Rajabi MT. Vacuum-assisted closure vs. moist wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Trauma Mon. 2015;20(1):e18614.
Shahzad F, Nazir R, Khan K, Tariq M. The knowledge and practices of diabetic foot care in Pakistani patients: a need for structured education. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2022;20(1):e123456.
Ravari H, Modaghegh MH, Kazemzadeh GH, Vatanchi AM, Shafii M. Comparison of vacuum-assisted closure and moist wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J Wound Care. 2014;23(12):584–587.
Liu S, He C, Cai Y, Xing Q. Negative pressure wound therapy for diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2021;49(4):300060521999959.
Ebrahimzadeh MH, Rajabi MT. Vacuum-assisted closure vs. moist wound dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Trauma Mon. 2015;20(1):e18614.
Sibbald RG, Woo KY. The biology of chronic foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(S1):S25–S30.
Alam W, Hasson J, Reed M. Clinical and cost effectiveness of VAC therapy in wound healing: a prospective Indian study. Int Wound J. 2022;19(3):615–622.
Abdelrahman TT, Hassan SA. Vacuum-assisted closure versus conventional dressings in diabetic foot ulcer management: A cost-effectiveness study in an Egyptian public hospital. Wounds. 2020;32(6):161–167.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Syed Muhammad Tayyab, Mansab Ali, Amir Usman, Syed Muhammad Mohsin Azeem, Seemab Ara, Tehmina Rafiq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
