3.8 Article

Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Using Matriderm In Comparison with a Skin Graft

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 403-408

Publisher

KOREAN SOC PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2013.40.4.403

Keywords

Skin; Diabetes complications; Skin transplantation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background For patients with neuropathy, vasculopathy, and impairment of wound healing, treatment of a diabetic foot ulcer poses many challenges. A large number of dermal analogues have been invented in an effort to overcome these challenges. Matriderm, a dermal analogue, is made from bovine collagen and elastin. This study was conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of Matriderm for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, in comparison with skin grafting. Methods Sixty patients with diabetic foot ulcer were included in this prospective study. The average age of the patients, who had type II diabetes mellitus, was 58 years old. The patients were allocated to an experimental or control group with their consents. The patients were selected with their consent for inclusion in an experimental group and a control group. Patients in the experimental group received a Matriderm appliance and a split-thickness skin graft, while those in the control group received only a split-thickness skin graft. Results A shorter hospitalization period (7.52 weeks) was observed in the experimental group than in the control group (9.22 weeks), and a shorter period of time (8.61 weeks) was required for complete healing, compared with the control group (12.94 weeks), with statistical significance (P < 0.05). A higher elasticity ratio of the affected side to the non-affected side was observed in the experimental group, compared with the control group (P < 0.01). Conclusions Matriderm enables effective healing and improves elasticity in treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available