Ultrasound-assisted debridement of neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcers, clinical and microbiological effects: a case series

Clinical Effects of Weekly and Biweekly Low-Frequency Ultrasound Debridement Versus Standard of Wound Care in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical effects of weekly (UD/week) and biweekly (UD/2-weeks) low-frequency ultrasound debridement (UD) on wound healing, healing time, wound area, granulation tissue, and transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2) in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), compared to the standard of care (SoC). A pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 30 patients with DFUs who received either UD/week (n = 10), UD/2-weeks (n = 11), or SoC (n = 9) every week over a 12-week treatment period. Healing rates at 6 months were 70% in the UD/week, 54.4% in the UD/2-weeks, and 33.3% in the SoC (P = .27). The healing times were 11 (IQR 7-19) weeks for UD/week, 18 (IQR 15-36) weeks for the SoC, and 24.5 (IQR 16-30) weeks for the UD/2-weeks group (P = .036). Wound area was reduced by 87.5 ± 18.5% in the UD/week, 68.6 ± 26.2% in the UD/2-weeks, and 38.9 ± 16.6% in the SoC (P = .014). Wollina wound scores were 7 (IQR 6-7) in the UD/week, 7 (IQR 6.5-7) in the UD/2-weeks, and 4 (IQR 3-6) in the SoC (P = .002). UD/week showed not significantly higher healing rates than the UD/2-weeks and SoC, but experienced significantly shorter healing time, a greater percentage of wound area reduction and higher Wollina wound score. These findings suggest that UD/week could be a valuable therapeutic option in clinical practice, particularly for patients in whom sharp debridement is not a viable option or who require an alternative approach to promote wound healing. This study is registered in ClinicalTrial.gov.

Evaluating the effectiveness of ultrasound-assisted wound debridement in managing diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) present a significant clinical challenge due to their high prevalence and profound impact on morbidity. Ultrasound-assisted wound debridement (UAWD) has emerged as a potential therapeutic modality to improve healing outcomes in DFU management.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of UAWD in treating DFUs on wound closure rates, treatment duration, and quality of life outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, systematically searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library with no date restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of UAWD in DFU treatment were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved through consensus or third-party consultation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. χ 2 and I 2 statistics assessed heterogeneity, informing the use of fixed or random-effects models for meta-analysis, supplemented by sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment through funnel plots and Egger's test.

RESULTS

From 1255 articles, seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that UAWD significantly reduced DFU healing time (standardized mean difference = -0.78, 95%CI: -0.97 to -0.60, P < 0.001) and increased healing rates (odds ratio = 9.96, 95%CI: 5.99 to 16.56, P < 0.001) compared to standard care. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these results, and no significant publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSION

UAWD is a promising adjunctive treatment for DFUs, significantly reducing healing times and increasing healing rates. These findings advocate for the integration of UAWD into standard DFU care protocols.

Management of biofilm-associated infections in diabetic wounds – from bench to bedside

Biofilms are complex bacterial colonies embedded in an extracellular matrix. These pose a major obstacle to wound healing and are noticeable in chronic wounds. It protects the bacteria from the host’s immune system and conventional antibiotic treatments. The biofilm’s protective matrix prevents essential nutrients and oxygen from diffusing into the surrounding healthy tissue. In addition, microbes living in biofilms naturally have increased resistance to antibiotics, which reduces the effectiveness of traditional therapies. As such, biofilms serve as persistent reservoirs of infection, which further disrupts the normal course of wound healing. In this review, the current formulation strategies such as hydrogels, polymeric nanoparticles, and nanofibers that are used in wound healing to counteract biofilms have been comprehensively discussed. The formulations have been meticulously designed and developed to disturb the biofilm matrix, prevent the growth of microorganisms, and increase the potency of antimicrobials and antibiotics. The mechanism of action, advantages and limitations associated with the existing formulation strategies have been reviewed. The formulation strategies that have been translated into clinical applications and patented are also discussed in this paper.

Molecular immunological mechanisms of impaired wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), current therapeutic strategies and future directions

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a foremost cause of amputation in diabetic patients. Consequences of DFU include infections, decline in limb function, hospitalization, amputation, and in severe cases, death. Immune cells including macrophages, regulatory T cells, fibroblasts and other damage repair cells work in sync for effective healing and in establishment of a healthy skin barrier post-injury. Immune dysregulation during the healing of wounds can result in wound chronicity. Hyperglycemic conditions in diabetic patients influence the pathophysiology of wounds by disrupting the immune system as well as promoting neuropathy and ischemic conditions, making them difficult to heal. Chronic wound microenvironment is characterized by increased expression of matrix metalloproteinases, reactive oxygen species as well as pro-inflammatory cytokines, resulting in persistent inflammation and delayed healing. Novel treatment modalities including growth factor therapies, nano formulations, microRNA based treatments and skin grafting approaches have significantly augmented treatment efficiency, demonstrating creditable efficacy in clinical practices. Advancements in local treatments as well as invasive methodologies, for instance formulated wound dressings, stem cell applications and immunomodulatory therapies have been successful in targeting the complex pathophysiology of chronic wounds. This review focuses on elucidating the intricacies of emerging physical and non-physical therapeutic interventions, delving into the realm of advanced wound care and comprehensively summarizing efficacy of evidence-based therapies for DFU currently available.

A deeper look at low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement in the clinical management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers

The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.

Effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement in subjects with diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis study to assess the effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement (USSD) in subjects with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). A comprehensive literature examination till January 2023 was implemented and 1873 linked studies were appraised. The picked studies contained 577 subjects with DFUs in the studies' baseline, 282 of them were using USSD, 204 were using standard care, and 91 were using a placebo. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the consequence of USSD in subjects with DFUs by the dichotomous styles and a fixed or random effect model. The USSD applied to DFU caused a significantly higher wound healing rate compared with the standard care (OR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.94-4.88, P < .001) with no heterogeneity (I2  = 0%) and the placebo (OR, 7.61; 95% CI, 3.11-18.63, P = .02) with no heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). The USSD applied to DFUs caused a significantly higher wound healing rate compared with the standard care and the placebo. Though precautions should be taken when commerce with the consequences as all of the picked studies for this meta-analysis was with low sample sizes.

Hybrid gelatin-sulfated alginate scaffolds as dermal substitutes can dramatically accelerate healing of full-thickness diabetic wounds

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are defined as chronic and non-healing wounds that cause skin disorders. Here, we introduce a novel biodegradable gelatin/sulfated alginate hybrid scaffold as a dermal substitute to accelerate the healing of full-thickness diabetic ulcers in a diabetic mouse model. The hybrid scaffold possessing different weight ratios of sulfated alginate, from 10 % up to 50 %, were prepared through chemical crosslinking by carbodiimide chemistry and further freeze-drying. Based on the in vitro cytotoxicity experiments, the hybrid scaffolds not only showed no cytotoxicity, but the cell growth also dramatically increased by increasing the sulfated alginate content. Finally, the pathology of hybrid scaffolds as the dermal substitutes for healing of full-thickness diabetic wounds showed the more appropriate formation of epidermal layer, more homogeneous distribution of collagenous tissue and lower penetration of immune cells for the hybrid scaffolds-treated wounds.

Use of low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement with and without polyhexamethylene biguanide in hard-to-heal leg ulcers: an RCT

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this research was to investigate the combination effect of polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) and low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) on the bacterial load in hard-to-heal wounds in adults, compared with ultrasonic debridement alone. Secondary outcomes included wound healing, quality of life (QoL) and pain scores.

METHOD

In this single-blinded, randomised, controlled trial participants were randomised to two groups. All participants received LFCUD weekly for six weeks, plus six weeks of weekly follow-up. The intervention group received an additional 15-minute topical application of PHMB post-LFCUD, at each dressing change and in a sustained dressing product. The control group received non-antimicrobial products and the wounds were cleansed with clean water or saline. Wound swabs were taken from all wounds for microbiological analysis at weeks 1, 3, 6 and 12.

RESULTS

A total of 50 participants took part. The intervention group (n=25) had a lower bacterial load at week 12 compared with the control group (n=25) (p<0.001). There was no difference in complete wound healing between the groups (p=0.47) or wound-related QoL (p=0.15). However, more wounds deteriorated in the control group (44%) compared with the intervention group (8%, p=0.01). A higher proportion of wounds reduced in size in the intervention group (61% versus 12%, p=0.019). Pain was lower in the intervention group at week six, compared with controls (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

LFCUD without the addition of an antimicrobial agent such as PHMB, cannot be recommended. Further research requires longer follow-up time and would benefit from being powered sufficiently to test the effects of multiple covariates.

Ultrasound-Assisted Wound (UAW) Debridement in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to investigate the effect of ultrasound-assisted wound (UAW) debridement in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). All selected studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. PubMed and Web of Science were searched in October 2021 to find randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing the effect of UAW debridement on DFUs. RevMan v5.4. was used to analyze the data with the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. A total of 8 RCT met our inclusion criteria, with 263 participants. Concerning the healing rate comparing UAW versus the control group, a meta-analysis estimated the pooled OR at 2.22 (95% CI 0.96-5.11, p = 0.06), favoring UAW debridement, with low heterogeneity (x² = 7.47, df = 5, p = 0.19, I² = 33%). Time to healing was similar in both groups: UAW group (14.25 ± 10.10 weeks) versus the control group (13.38 ± 1.99 weeks, p = 0.87). Wound area reduction was greater in the UAW debridement group (74.58% ± 19.21%) than in the control group (56.86% ± 25.09%), although no significant differences were observed between them (p = 0.24). UAW debridement showed higher healing rates, a greater percentage of wound area reduction, and similar healing times when compared with placebo (sham device) and standard of care in patients with DFUs, although no statistically significant differences were observed between groups.

Advances in the Sensing and Treatment of Wound Biofilms

Wound biofilms represent a particularly challenging problem in modern medicine. They are increasingly antibiotic resistant and can prevent the healing of chronic wounds. However, current treatment and diagnostic options are hampered by the complexity of the biofilm environment. In this review, we present new chemical avenues in biofilm sensors and new materials to treat wound biofilms, offering promise for better detection, chemical specificity, and biocompatibility. We briefly discuss existing methods for biofilm detection and focus on novel, sensor-based approaches that show promise for early, accurate detection of biofilm formation on wound sites and that can be translated to point-of-care settings. We then discuss technologies inspired by new materials for efficient biofilm eradication. We focus on ultrasound-induced microbubbles and nanomaterials that can both penetrate the biofilm and simultaneously carry active antimicrobials and discuss the benefits of those approaches in comparison to conventional methods.

Advances in the Sensing and Treatment of Wound Biofilms

Wound biofilms represent a particularly challenging problem in modern medicine. They are increasingly antibiotic resistant and can prevent the healing of chronic wounds. However, current treatment and diagnostic options are hampered by the complexity of the biofilm environment. In this review, we present new chemical avenues in biofilm sensors and new materials to treat wound biofilms, offering promise for better detection, chemical specificity, and biocompatibility. We briefly discuss existing methods for biofilm detection and focus on novel, sensor-based approaches that show promise for early, accurate detection of biofilm formation on wound sites and that can be translated to point-of-care settings. We then discuss technologies inspired by new materials for efficient biofilm eradication. We focus on ultrasound-induced microbubbles and nanomaterials that can both penetrate the biofilm and simultaneously carry active antimicrobials and discuss the benefits of those approaches in comparison to conventional methods.

Effectiveness of ultrasonic debridement on reduction of bacteria and biofilm in patients with chronic wounds: A scoping review

Chronic wounds are defined as "hard-to-heal" wounds that are caused by disordered mechanisms of wound healing. Chronic wounds have a high risk of infection and can form biofilms, leading to the release of planktonic bacteria, which causes persistent infections locally or remotely. Therefore, infection control and removal of the biofilm in chronic wounds are essential. Recently, ultrasonic debridement was introduced as a new method to reduce infection and promote the healing of chronic wounds. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonic debridement on the changes in bacteria and biofilms, and consequently the wound healing rate of chronic wounds. A total of 1021 articles were identified through the database search, and nine papers were eligible for inclusion. Findings suggest that non-contact devices are useful for wound healing as they reduce the inflammatory response, although the bacterial load is not significantly changed. Ultrasonic debridement devices that require direct contact with the wound promote wound healing through reduction of biofilm or bacterial load. The optimum settings for ultrasonic debridement using a non-contact device are relatively consistent, but the settings for devices that require direct contact are diverse. Further studies on ultrasonic debridement in chronic wounds are required.

3D scaffolds in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: New trends vs conventional approaches

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a serious complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting roughly 25% of diabetic patients and resulting in lower limb amputation in over 70% of known cases. In addition to the devastating physiological consequences of DFU and its impact on patient quality of life, DFU has significant clinical and economic implications. Various traditional therapies are implemented to effectively treat DFU. However, emerging technologies such as bioprinting and electrospinning, present an exciting opportunity to improve current treatment strategies through the development of 3D scaffolds, by overcoming the limitations of current wound healing strategies. This review provides a summary on (i) current prevention and treatment strategies available for DFU; (ii) methods of fabrication of 3D scaffolds relevant for this condition; (iii) suitable materials and commonly used molecules for the treatment of DFU; and (iv) future directions offered by emerging technologies.

Ultrasonic-assisted wound debridement: report from a closed panel meeting

Mechanical debridement can be considered as an alternative to surgical debridement if surgery is not available, or is considered impractical or too high risk. One form of selective mechanical debridement is ultrasonic-assisted wound (UAW) debridement. As the published evidence on this is limited, a closed international expert meeting was held to review the existing evidence base on it, present preliminary findings of research currently in progress and discuss individual cases selected from the clinical experts' own practice. The panel also explored the potential barriers to the implementation of UAW debridement and how these might be addressed. It concluded there is sufficient evidence that UAW debridement is an effective method of cleansing and debriding almost all hard-to-heal wounds. Patients who are most likely to benefit from it are not medically stable, on anticoagulants, unable to visit a hospital for wound treatment, and/or have wounds with a poor vascular supply or are close to critical structures. The panel also observed that UAW debridement can be used to prepare the wound for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or as an adjunctive to it. Given the potential to experience pain during the procedure, the panel considered that patients will benefit from topical analgesia. The panel noted that health professionals, patients and visitors must be protected from the aerosolisation associated with UAW, to reduce risk of cross-contamination.

Cellular Proliferation, Dermal Repair, and Microbiological Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Assisted Wound Debridement (UAW) Versus Standard Wound Treatment in Complicated Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFU): An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

We aimed to evaluate the effects of ultrasound-assisted wound (UAW) debridement on cellular proliferation and dermal repair in complicated diabetic foot ulcers as compared to diabetic foot ulcers receiving surgical/sharp wound debridement. A randomized controlled trial was performed involving 51 outpatients with complicated diabetic foot ulcers that either received surgical debridement (n = 24) or UAW debridement (n = 27) every week during a six-week treatment period. Compared to patients receiving surgical debridement, patients treated with UAW debridement exhibited significantly improved cellular proliferation, as determined by CD31 staining, Masson’s trichrome staining, and actin staining. Bacterial loads were significantly reduced in the UAW debridement group compared to the surgical group (UAW group 4.27 ± 0.37 day 0 to 2.11 ± 0.8 versus surgical group 4.66 ± 1.21 day 0 to 4.39 ± 1.24 day 42; p = 0.01). Time to healing was also significantly lower (p = 0.04) in the UAW group (9.7 ± 3.8 weeks) compared to the surgical group (14.8 ± 12.3 weeks), but both groups had similar rates of patients that were healed after six months of follow-up (23 patients (85.1%) in the UAW group vs. 20 patients (83.3%) in the surgical group; p = 0.856). We propose that UAW debridement could be an effective alternative when surgical debridement is not available or is contraindicated for use on patients with complicated diabetic foot ulcers.

Biofilms in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Significance and Clinical Relevance

Foot infections are the main disabling complication in patients with diabetes mellitus. These infections can lead to lower-limb amputation, increasing mortality and decreasing the quality of life. Biofilm formation is an important pathophysiology step in diabetic foot ulcers (DFU)-it plays a main role in the disease progression and chronicity of the lesion, the development of antibiotic resistance, and makes wound healing difficult to treat. The main problem is the difficulty in distinguishing between infection and colonization in DFU. The bacteria present in DFU are organized into functionally equivalent pathogroups that allow for close interactions between the bacteria within the biofilm. Consequently, some bacterial species that alone would be considered non-pathogenic, or incapable of maintaining a chronic infection, could co-aggregate symbiotically in a pathogenic biofilm and act synergistically to cause a chronic infection. In this review, we discuss current knowledge on biofilm formation, its presence in DFU, how the diabetic environment affects biofilm formation and its regulation, and the clinical implications.

Advances in Dermoepidermal Skin Substitutes for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are one of the major complications of diabetes, representing a leading cause of hospitalisation and non-traumatic lower limb amputations. Multidisciplinary management, patient education, glucose control, debridement, off-loading, infection control, and adequate perfusion are the mainstays of standard care. Despite all these, at least 30% of DFUs fail to heal within 20 weeks. Therefore, dermoepidermal skin substitutes (DSS) have been used as a new therapeutic adjunct for DFUs. This brief review outlines the recent advances in DSS for the treatment of DFUs. PubMed and Cochrane databases were systematically searched in May to July 2018 for systematic reviews published after 2013 and for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A retrospective evaluation of 28 RCTs was performed. Rates of complete wound closure and time to healing were examined for 17 commonly available DSS. Healing rates after 12 weeks and time to complete closure in DFUs are heterogeneous among the 28 RCT. The best healing rates at 12 weeks were accomplished with dermal cellular substitutes (Epifix®, 100% and Amnioband®, 85%) and with dermal acellular substitutes (Allopatch®, 80% and Hyalograft®, 78.8%). Based on these studies, DSS used in conjunction with standard care appear to improve the healing rates of DFUs, as compared with standard care alone. Nonetheless, new studies with more homogeneous samples are needed to ascertain the role of ulcer size, duration, depth and/or type in the efficacy of DSS. Moreover, future RCTs should include patients with severe comorbidities, in order to be more representative of clinical reality.

Ultrasound Devices to Treat Chronic Wounds: The Current Level of Evidence

Chronic wounds cause considerable morbidity and utilize significant health care resources. In addition to addressing wound etiology and treating infection, regular debridement is a key component of wound care with a proven ability to accelerate healing. In this regard, a significant innovation in wound care has been the development of ultrasound debridement technology. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current evidence behind the technology with an emphasis on noncontact low-frequency (NCLF) ultrasound. A number of studies, especially those evaluating NCLF technology, have demonstrated the potential of ultrasound debridement to effectively remove devitalized tissue, control bioburden, alleviate pain, and expedite healing. However, most of the studies are underpowered, involve heterogeneous ulcer types, and demonstrate significant methodological limitations making comparison between studies difficult; there is a paucity of data on cost-effectiveness. Future clinical trials on ultrasound debridement technology must address the design issues prevalent in current studies, and report on clinically relevant endpoints before adoption into best-practice algorithms can be recommended.

Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies

This review provides an outline of the use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane database was performed on October 2, 2019. Eighteen studies were identified (14 preclinical and 4 clinical). Studies in animal models have demonstrated that AMSCs enhance diabetic wound healing, accelerate granulation tissue formation, and increase reepithelialization and neovascularization. Only 1 randomized control trial has been published so far. Patients (n = 25) with DFUs were treated using an allogeneic AMSC directly on the wound bed as a primary dressing, and improvements were found in complete wound closure in the treatment group (n = 16). Three clinical studies showed that autologous AMSC might be a safe alternative to achieve therapeutic angiogenesis in patients with diabetes and peripheral arterial disease. Based on the available evidence, AMSCs hold promise in the treatment of DFUs. However, this evidence requires confirmation by well-designed trials. Additional studies are also required to understand some issues regarding this treatment for DFUs. For example, the potential application of autologous or allogeneic AMSCs in different types of DFUs, optimal dose/infusion schedules, safety evaluations, and cost-effectiveness.

Effectiveness of biofilm-based wound care system on wound healing in chronic wounds

A biofilm plays a crucial role in delaying wound healing. Sharp debridement, a possible effective method for eliminating biofilms, can only be applied to the wound with visible necrotic tissue; thus, no option has been available for eliminating biofilms that are not accompanied by necrotic tissue. Wound blotting was recently developed to visualize biofilm noninvasively and quickly, and ultrasonic debridement is available for biofilm removal. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of "biofilm-based wound care system (BWCS)," a combination of wound blotting as a point-of-care testing and ultrasonic debridement, for promoting wound healing. Firstly, the cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the proportion of biofilm removal by ultrasonic debridement in pressure ulcers [Study 1]. Subsequently, the retrospective cohort study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of BWCS for healing of chronic wounds [Study 2]. The proportions of wound healing between wounds treated with BWCS and those with standard care in the home-visiting clinic were compared by Kaplan-Meier curve, and the Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to assess the effect of BWCS on wound healing. In Study 1, the median of biofilm removal proportion was 38.9% (interquartile range, 12.9-68.0%) for pressure ulcers treated with standard care and 65.2% (41.1-78.8%) for those treated with ultrasonic debridement (p = 0.009). In Study 2, the proportion of wound healing within 90 days was significantly higher in wounds treated with BWCS than in those treated with standard care (p = 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio of BWCS for wound healing was 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.3-15.0; p = 0.015). In conclusion, we demonstrated that our novel approach, BWCS, can be a promising therapeutic strategy for visualizing biofilms that are not accompanied by necrotic tissue and promoting healing in chronic wounds.

Ultrasonic debridement management of lower extremity wounds: retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and cost

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess wound healing outcomes following direct, low-frequency, high-intensity, ultrasonic debridement as a surgical adjunct for non-healing lower extremity wounds.

Methods:

A retrospective review was conducted for patients undergoing lower extremity wound treatment with direct, low-frequency (22.5 kHz), high-intensity (~60 W/cm2) ultrasonic debridement between January 2010 and January 2016. Clinical outcomes were assessed up to 180-days post-ultrasonic debridement. Descriptive statistics, cost and univariate analysis were performed.

Results:

Overall, 82 wounds in 51 patients were included. Mean age was 57.0 years (range: 32–69), and average body mass index (BMI) was 30.8 kg/m². Patient comorbidities consisted of smoking (47%; n=24), hypertension (75%; n=38), diabetes (45%; n=23), and peripheral vascular disease (51%, n=26). Average wound age at initial presentation was 1013 days (range: 2–5475 days) with an average wound size of 9.0cm x 7.4cm. At 180-days post-debridement, 60% (n=49) of wounds had completely healed. Readmission (47%; n=24) and reoperation (45%; n=23) rates were characterised by the reason for readmission and reoperation respectively. Readmission for wound healing (70%, n=39) was primarily for further debridements (41%; n=16). Wound infection (30%; n=7) was the most common readmission for wound complications (30%; n=17). Reoperations primarily consisted of treatments for further wound healing 96% (n=51). Cost analysis showed a lower total treatment cost for patients with improved healing ($78,698), compared with non-improved wounds ($137,707).

Conclusion:

In a complex, heterogeneous cohort of chronic extremity wounds, the use of direct, low-frequency, high-intensity, ultrasonic debridement is a safe and reliable adjunctive therapy for the management of these wounds.