4.3 Review

NPWT in diabetic foot wounds-a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 44-55

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-019-02164-9

关键词

Negative-pressure wound therapy; Diabetic foot syndrome; Wound healing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an adjunct modality in diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown its advantage over standard approaches; however, data from observational studies remain scarce.We performed a systematic review of observational non-RCTs evaluating NPWT efficacy and safety in patients with DFU. Methods Electronic databases were searched for observational studies involving NPWT. The results of single-arm studies were presented as percentages of patients with the outcome of interest. A meta-analysis of comparative studies provided point estimates of outcomes. Continuous outcomes were reported as either weighted or standardized mean differences and dichotomous data as relative risks (RR). Results The search identified 16 relevant observational studies, 12 single-arm, and 4 comparative, reporting on a total of 18,449 patients with DFU, of whom 1882 were managed with NPWT. In the NPWT-treated patients, ulcers were larger (average size range 6.6-27.9 cm(2)), as compared with controls (<= 3 cm(2)). The pooled results showed healing and major amputation in 51% and 5% of NPWT patients, respectively. The meta-analysis of comparative studies revealed lower risk of major amputation [RR = 0.23 (0.07; 0.80)] in NPWT-treated patients. The pooled results for healing rate and risk of any amputation were inconclusive due to large between-study heterogeneity. Overall, 6 deaths out of 158 patients were reported, none of them related to NPWT. Serious adverse events occurred in 6% of patients on NPWT. Conclusions This systematic review of observational studies provided supportive evidence that NWPT is an efficient and safe adjunct treatment in the management of DFUs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据