Comparative study of various dressing techniques in diabetic foot ulcers in the Indian population: a single-center experience

Abstract

Introduction: A prospective randomized study was conducted to evaluate and compare the efficacy of conventional dressing, foam dressing, and vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).

Material and methods: Ninety patients with DFU were included in the study conducted between 2018 and 2021 at a tertiary care center. Group 1 patients (n = 30) were treated with conventional dressing, group 2 patients (n = 30) with foam dressing, and group 3 patients (n = 30) with VAC dressing. The duration of treatment, number of debridement, need for the secondary procedure, cost of treatment, and duration of hospital stay were compared between the three groups.

Results: There was a significant difference in the duration of treatment among the three groups with VAC being the least (group 1, 31.17 days; group 2, 24.13 days; group 3, 15.17 days). The mean number of debridement was also significantly less in the VAC group (2.37, 2.43, and 1.60, respectively). The need for the secondary procedure, like flap or skin graft, was also the least in the VAC group, although insignificant. The mean hospital stay of the study subjects was 31.17 days, 24.13 days, and 15.17 days in the 3 groups, respectively. The mean cost of the treatment was 3076.67 INR, 3717.33 INR, and 10,680 INR, respectively.

Conclusion: VAC dressing is the best option amongst the available dressing modalities in terms of faster healing and a short hospital stay. Foam dressing does provide an economically viable option with better results than conventional dressing.

Keywords: Conventional dressing; Cost-effective; Diabetic foot ulcer; Foam dressing; Hospital stay; Vacuum-assisted closure.

Fig. 1

Correlation of healing time and surface area among different groups