Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
research-article2014
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR PROSTHETICS
AND ORTHOTICS
Literature Review
Abstract
Background: Hospital-based studies have shown that mortality rates in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers are about
twice those observed in individuals with diabetes without foot ulcers.
Objective: To assess the etiology and management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers.
Study design: Literature review.
Methods: Systematic review of the literature discussing management of diabetic foot ulcers. Since there were only a few
randomized controlled trials on this topic, articles were selected to attempt to be comprehensive rather than a formal
assessment of study quality.
Results: Chronic nonhealing foot ulcers occur in approximately 15% of patients with diabetes. Many factors contribute
to impaired diabetic wound healing. Risk factors include peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, limited joint
mobility, foot deformities, abnormal foot pressures, minor trauma, a history of ulceration or amputation, and impaired
visual acuity. With the current treatment for nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers, a significant number of patients require
amputation.
Conclusion: Diabetic foot ulcers are optimally managed by a multidisciplinary integrated team. Offloading and preventative
management are important. Dressings play an adjunctive role. There is a critical need to develop novel treatments to
improve healing of diabetic foot ulcers. The goal is to have wounds heal and remain healed.
Clinical relevance
Diabetic neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease are major factors involved in a diabetic foot ulcer. Despite current
treatment modalities for nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers, there are a significant number of patients who require
amputations. No known therapy will be effective without concomitant management of ischemia, infection, and adequate
offloading.
Keywords
Diabetes, diabetic foot ulcer, neuropathy, wounds
Date received: 25 March 2014; accepted: 10 April 2014
Introduction
Chronic nonhealing neuropathic foot ulcers occur in
approximately 15% of patients with diabetes.1 In 2011,
there were an estimated 366,000,000 adults with diabetes.
Worldwide global projections indicate that this figure will
increase to 552,000,000 by 2030.2 In North America and
Europe, the number of adults with diabetes is expected to
increase by 42.4% and 20%, respectively.3,4 A major
increase is also predicted in Africa, with the number of
adults with diabetes expected to increase by 98.1% from
2010 to 2030.3,4 The main factors responsible for the
1Vascular
30
increase in patients with diabetes are aging of the population and lifestyle changes.3,5 The dramatic increase in the
worldwide prevalence of diabetes has resulted in a rise in
diabetes-related complications.
Persons with diabetes mellitus have a 15%25% chance
of developing a diabetic foot ulcer during their lifetime
and a 50%70% recurrence rate over the ensuing 5 years.6
8 Foot lesions carry high morbidity and mortality and represent the most common cause of hospitalization in
patients with diabetes. While diabetes affects more than
8% of the US population, it has been implicated in over
60% of all nontraumatic lower extremity amputations.9
The risk of a person with diabetes undergoing a lower
extremity amputation is estimated to be 23 times that of a
person without diabetes.10 Greater than 85% of major
amputations in patients with diabetes are preceded by foot
ulceration.8,1113 Following amputation, 50% of patients
either die or lose the contralateral limb within 5 years.14
The early recognition of the high-risk foot and timely
treatment may prevent foot ulcers, save limbs, potentially
save lives, and improve patient quality of life.15 A strategy
which includes prevention, patient and staff education,
multidisciplinary treatment of foot ulcers, and close monitoring can reduce amputation rates by 49%85%. As a
result, several countries and organizations (the World
Health Organization and the International Diabetes
Federation) have set goals to reduce the rate of amputation
by up to 50%.16 Unfortunately, despite evidence to suggest
that targeted interventions resulting from multidisciplinary
care can reduce limb loss, progress to date has been slow.17
31
Andrews et al.
Figure 1. (a) Dislocation of the second toe at the MTP joint and (b) standing view showing prominence of the dislocated second
MTP joint.
MTP: metatarsal phalangeal.
Imaging
Plain radiographs help identify foreign bodies, bone
deformities, gas in the tissues, or evidence of osteomyelitis. Plain films lack sensitivity for detecting early osteomyelitis, especially in the presence of osteopenia associated
Antimicrobial therapy
All open wounds are colonized with microorganisms. The
generally accepted clinical definition of infection is the
presence of purulent secretions or at least two signs or
symptoms of inflammation (erythema, warmth, tenderness, pain, and induration).50 Patients with chronic ulcers
or those who have recently received antibiotic treatment
often have a polymicrobial infection with aerobic gramnegative bacilli and gram-positive cocci.51
32
Figure 3. (a) Chronic fracture deformities of the proximal right second through fourth metatarsals. Ununited fracture of the
proximal right fifth metatarsal with overlying wound. (b) Neuropathic wound right lateral midfoot overlying ununited fracture of the
proximal right fifth metatarsal (Figure 3(a)). Note: Periulcer callus; undermining; pale, flat tissue in the wound base; slough around
the edge of the wound. (c) Right foot 6 weeks following fifth ray amputation despite casting and instructions to offload the foot. The
patient ultimately required a transtibial amputation 7 months later.
The aim of antimicrobial therapy is to cure the infection, not to heal the wound. Extended antibiotic treatment
increases the risk of antibiotic resistance and drug-related
toxic effects. Antibiotic treatment without offloading a
plantar wound is unlikely to result in ulcer healing. There
is no role for routine suppressive antibiotics. Antibiotics
should not be used unless a wound infection is present.
Osteomyelitis
Risk factor identification is fundamental for effective preventative management of the diabetic foot. Hospital-based
studies have shown that mortality rates in individuals with
diabetic foot ulcers are about twice those observed in individuals with diabetes without foot ulcers.57 Nearly all
patients with lower limb ulcers can benefit from evidencebased therapy aimed at reducing the risk of atherosclerotic
vascular disease. Consistently using evidence-based
wound risk assessment coupled with standardized wound
interventions may result in fewer wounds and improved
therapeutic outcomes. Unfortunately, the quality of the
evidence is low. The Cochrane reviews have attempted to
answer many treatment questions with meta-analysis and
systematic evaluation of the literature. These reviews indicate that even when combining these small studies, the
results do not provide solid conclusions regarding the efficacy of current wound treatment options. Clinicians rely
on consensus views and personal experience to guide
wound treatment options. Most randomized control trials
(RCTs) evaluate one specific intervention (often topical),
resulting in many common practices being untested or
assumed. In many wound care RCTs, the authors report
results from a small number of total subjects (often less
than 100) with limited duration of subsequent
follow-up.58,59
Adequate nutrition supports wound healing. Decreased
serum albumin is associated with poor wound healing and
Approaches to the management of osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers vary widely from center to center and
country to country. At present, there are a few studies with
robust data to guide clinicians in the choice, duration, or
route of antimicrobial therapy.52,53 Osteomyelitis is probably present if the bone is visible or palpable by probing.
Other clinical clues to the presence of osteomyelitis
include general malaise, local pain, worsening diabetic
control, abnormal friable exuberant granulation tissue in
the wound, and laboratory findings of an elevated sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein.
Although there is no clear consensus as to whether
management should be primarily medical (antibiotics)
or surgical,52 when possible, bone infection is best
treated by surgical resection of the infected and necrotic
bone.54,55 A potential complication of surgical management is altered foot architecture. Careful offloading is
important in the perioperative period to avoid skin
breakdown at a new high-pressure site (Figure 3(a)(c)).
The highest risk of recurrent ulceration occurs after surgery to the first metatarsal head (28%), and the lowest
risk occurs to the fifth metatarsal head (8%).56 Surgical
management allows shorter duration of antibiotic treatment and reduces the likelihood of bacterial resistance
to antibiotics.
33
Andrews et al.
poor clinical outcomes.60 Serum pre-albumin provides a
more sensitive indicator of protein status in acute stages of
malnutrition and helps evaluate the adequacy of nutritional
therapy.61 Clinically, significant malnutrition is defined as
a pre-albumin of less than 15 mg/dL or a decrease in ones
total body weight by more than 5% experienced within 1
month. If a patient develops malnutrition, they should eat
protein in the amount of 1.21.5 gm/kg of body weight
every day.62
All individuals with diabetes should have a thorough
foot examination at least once per year to identify highrisk foot conditions. This examination should assess protective sensation, foot structure and biomechanics, vascular
status, and skin integrity. Clinicians should perform a comprehensive physical examination on all patients with
ulcers, giving particular attention to the wound characteristics, vascular status, and overall health of the patient. The
wound site should be evaluated on every visit, noting
wound size and characteristics.63 Assessing the wound
margins (callous, undermining) provides clues about
offloading.
Patients at risk should understand the implications of
loss of protective sensation, the importance of foot monitoring on a daily basis, the importance of proper care of the
foot (nail and skin care), and the importance of always
wearing protective footwear. Patients with evidence of
increased plantar pressure (erythema, warmth, callus, or
measured pressure) should use footwear that provides soft
tissue supplementation and redistributes pressure. Patients
with neuropathy should be advised to break in shoes gradually to minimize the formation of blisters and ulcers.
Topical therapies
Thermography
The use of temperature is a quantifiable, reproducible
measurement of inflammation. One study evaluated the
effectiveness of at-home infrared temperature monitoring
as a preventative tool in patients with diabetes at high risk
of lower extremity ulceration or amputation. The study
group patients had temperatures measured in the morning
and evening, were instructed to reduce their activity, and
contact the study nurse when temperatures increased. This
group had significantly fewer foot complications owing to
their early warning of inflammation and tissue injury.64
Offloading
The treatment of diabetic foot ulcers includes pressure
relief (offloading) by limiting walking, wearing special
footwear, or both.
Patients should be counseled never to walk in shoes that
contributed to a foot ulcer.65 The most compelling evidence that offloading accelerates ulcer healing comes from
studies using total contact casting for healing of noninfected neuropathic ulcers. Neuropathic ulcers that resisted
Dressings play an adjunctive role in the treatment of diabetic wounds; however, this role can be limited, and dressings should never be considered the sole treatment
modality. Clinicians typically use three types of dressings:
hydrating; debriding; and antimicrobial (Table 1).
Clinicians should always consider cost when choosing
wound care products. Wound characteristics such as location, size, depth, and presence of drainage may influence
the topical agent chosen.
Topical antimicrobials (ointments, creams, and gels)
have long been utilized for the treatment of wounds.
Despite their widespread use, there is a paucity of evidence
to support the use of topical therapies for diabetic foot
ulcers.73 Topical antiseptics can impair wound healing.
Dressings containing silver or iodine appear to be safe and
possibly useful.74
Transparent films
Cellular and/or
tissue-based products
Antimicrobial
dressings
Worsening infection;
hypersensitivity/reaction to
the antimicrobial product
Can be costly
Disadvantages
Advantages
Malodorous, highly
exudative, slow-healing
wounds; increased wound
bioburden
Silver dressings
Hydrocolloids
Wound hydration
Hydrogels
Alginates
Low- to moderately
exudative wounds
Foam
Gauze
Contraindications
Indications
Dressing
Needs to be remoistened
often to maintain a moist
wound environment
Comments
34
Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)
35
Andrews et al.
or otherwise altered. CTP products are typically indicated when split thickness skin graft, local or free tissue
flaps, or primary closures are not feasible options. These
products work to awaken and activate senescent cells in
the chronic diabetic wound. Some CTP products contain
viable cells including fibroblast and keratinocytes which
are delivered to the nonhealing wound site (Apligraf
and Dermagraft (Organogenesis, Canton, MA, USA)).
In contrast, other CTP products provide an organized
scaffold to facilitate cell migration (Integra (Integra
Life Sciences, Plainsboro, NJ, USA) and MatriStem
(ACell, Columbia, MD, USA)). These products provide
the durable dermal layer necessary for granulation tissue
formation.
Prior to applying a CTP product, it is important that the
wound bed and local perfusion are optimized. Although
CTP products can be applied repeatedly until complete
epithelialization occurs, complete epithelialization is not
always the goal of this therapy. The relatively high cost of
these products may prohibit this approach. Close monitoring of wound quality and size is essential.
Regenerative medicine
With an estimated annual cost of over US$20 billion, there
is a critical need to develop novel treatments to improve
healing of chronic nonhealing cutaneous wound, in particular diabetic foot ulcers.75 There have been encouraging
results in preclinical models of diabetic wound healing.
The plasticity of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem
cells (MSCs) is well established, differentiating various
cells including skin cells, specifically keratinocytes.7678
The addition and incorporation of stem cells into wounds,
particularly if they are capable of differentiating into a
number of cell types, is promising. Similarly, MSCs have
been shown to suppress the local immune response, reduce
inflammation, and stimulate the differentiation and proliferation of local progenitor cells through the secretion of
growth factors and their ability to modulate the immune
system of the local soft-tissue.75,7981 Stem cells are thought
to modulate all the phases of wound healing, allowing for
a wound to progress from the initial inflammatory state,
and preventing them from becoming a chronic wound.
MSCs have been shown to reduce inflammation by
decreasing the amount of TNF- and interferon-, both
proinflammatory cytokines, helping to regulate the bodys
response to injury.82 Along with reducing inflammation,
MSCs have also been shown to have an antimicrobial
effect.83,84 They are able to do this through the secretion of
antimicrobial factors and by upregulating the phagocytosis
and bacteriocidal effect of immune cells.83,84
It is thought that one of the greatest actions of MSCs in
ameliorating chronic wounds is through their paracrine
effects. Although studies have shown MSCs are capable
of differentiating into keratinocytes, the secretion of
Hyperbaric oxygen
Hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO) has been proposed as an
adjunctive treatment for diabetic foot ulcers.103105 A recent
review provides evidence that HBO therapy in patients
with diabetic ulcers decreases the overall risk of amputation, especially major amputation, when compared to therapy without HBO (13.63% vs 30.07%).103
36
Conclusion
Advances in treating chronic diabetic wounds are promising; however, the intrinsic pathophysiologic abnormalities that lead to ulcers in the first place cannot be ignored.
No known therapy will be effective without concomitant
management of ischemia, infection, and adequate
offloading.
Not all diabetic foot complications can be prevented,
but it is possible to dramatically reduce their incidence
through appropriate management and prevention programs. The multidisciplinary team approach to diabetic
foot disorders has been demonstrated as the optimal
method to achieve favorable rates of limb salvage in the
high-risk diabetic patient.
Author contribution
All authors contributed equally in the preparation of this
manuscript.
Conflict of interest
No disclosures of funding were received for this work from NIH,
Wellcome Trust, or HHMI. No conflicts of interest are declared
by any author on this study.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Brem H and Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis
of wound healing in diabetes. J Clin Invest 2007; 117:
12191222.
2. International Diabetes Federation. E-Atlas of diabetes. 5th
ed. 2011, http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas
3. Shaw JE, Sicree RA and Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of
the prevalence of diabetes from 2010 and 2030. Diabetes
Res Clin Pract 2010; 87: 414.
4. Whiting DR, Guariguata L, Wheil C, et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes
for 2011 and 2030. Diabet Res Clin Pract 2011; 94:
311321.
5. Chittleborough CR, Grant JF, Phillips PJ, et al. The increasing prevalence of diabetes in South Australia: the relationship with population ageing and obesity. Public Health
2007; 121: 9299.
6. Boulton AJ. The diabetic foot. Med Clin North Am 2010;
38: 644648.
7. Snyder RJ, Kirsner RS, Warriner RA, et al. Consensus recommendations on advancing the standard of care for treating neuropathic foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Ostomy
Wound Manage 2010; 56: S1S24.
8. Boulton AJ, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, et al. The
global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet 2005; 366:
17191724.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National
diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general
information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United
States. 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/DIABETES/pubs/pdf/
ndfs_2011.pdf
10. The NHS Information Center. National Diabetes Audit
executive summary 20092010. 2011, http://www.hqip.
org.uk/assets/NCAPOP-Library/National-Diabetes-AuditExecutive-Summary-2009-2010.pdf
11. OLoughlin A, McIntosh C, Dinneen S, et al. Review paper:
basic concepts to novel therapies: a review of the diabetic
foot. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2010; 9: 90102.
12. Larsson J, Agardh CD, Apelqvist J, et al. Long-term prognosis after healed amputation in patients with diabetes. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 1998; 350: 149158.
13. American Diabetes Association. Consensus Developmental
Conference on diabetic foot wound care. Diabetes Care
1999; 22: 13541360.
14. Dargis V. Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulcerations in Lithuania: a
prospective study. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 14281431.
15. Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Mayer D, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers:
part I. Pathophysiology and prevention. J Am Acad Dermatol
2014; 70: E1E18.
16. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, et al. Practical
guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot: based upon the International Consensus on the
Diabetic Foot (2007) Prepared by the International Working
37
Andrews et al.
Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008;
24: S181S187.
17. Krishnan S, Nash F, Baker NR, et al. Reduction in diabetic
amputations over 11 years in a defined UK population: benefits of multidisciplinary work and continuous prospective
audit. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 99101.
18. Falanga V. Wound healing and its impairment in the diabetic foot. Lancet 2005; 366: 17361743.
19. Sibbald RG and Woo KY. Biology of chronic foot ulcers
with persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008;
24: S25S30.
20. Blakytny R and Jude E. The molecular biology of chronic
wounds and delayed healing in diabetes. Diabet Med 2006;
23: 594608.
21. Singer AJ and Clark RA. Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl
J Med 1999; 341: 738746.
22. Werner S and Grose R. Regulation of wound healing by
growth factors and cytokines. Physiol Rev 2003; 83: 835
870.
23. Galkowska H, Wojewodzka U and Olszewski WL.
Chemokines, cytokines, and growth factors in keratinocytes
and dermal endothelial cells in the margin of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 2006; 14: 558565.
24. Lobmann R, Ambrosch A, Schultz G, et al. Expression
of matrix-metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in the
wounds of diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetologia
2002; 45: 10111016.
25. Eming SA, Koch M, Krieger A, et al. Differential proteomic
analysis distinguishes tissue repair biomarker signatures in
wound exudates obtained from normal healing and chronic
wounds. J Proteome Res 2010; 9: 47584766.
26. Khanna S, Biswas S, Shang Y, et al. Macrophage dysfunction impairs resolution of inflammation in the wounds of
diabetic mice. PLoS One 2010; 5: E9539.
27. Lucas T, Waisman A, Ranjan R, et al. Differential roles of
macrophages in diverse phases of skin repair. J Immunol
2010; 184: 39643977.
28. Hubner G, Brauchle M, Smola H, et al. Differential regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines during wound healing in
normal and glucocorticoid-treated mice. Cytokine 1996; 8:
548556.
29. Han YP, Tuan TL, Wu H, et al. TNF-alpha stimulates activation of pro-MMP2 in human skin through NF-(kappa)B
mediated induction of MT1-MMP. J Cell Sci 2001; 114:
131139.
30. Kaiser GC and Polk DB. Tumor necrosis factor alpha
regulates proliferation in a mouse intestinal cell line.
Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 12311240.
31. Xu F, Zhang C and Graves DT. Abnormal cell responses
and role of TNF- in impaired diabetic wound healing.
Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013: 754802 (9 pp.).
32. Brownlee M. Advanced protein glycosylation in diabetes
and aging. Annu Rev Med 1995; 46: 223234.
33. Aronson D. Cross-linking of glycated collagen in the pathogenesis of arterial and myocardial stiffening of aging and
diabetes. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 312.
34. Goova MT, Li J, Kislinger T, et al. Blockade of receptor for
advanced glycation end-products restores effective wound
healing in diabetic mice. Am J Pathol 2001; 159: 513525.
35. Peppa M, Stavroulakis P and Raptis SA. Advanced glycoxidation products and impaired diabetic wound healing.
Wound Repair Regen 2009; 17: 461472.
36. Wetzler C, Kampfer H, Stallmeyer B, et al. Large and sustained induction of chemokines during impaired wound
healing in the genetically diabetic mouse: prolonged persistence of neutrophils and macrophages during the late phase
of repair. J Invest Dermatol 2000; 115: 245253.
37. Bermudez DM, Herdrich BJ, Xu J, et al. Impaired biomechanical properties of diabetic skin implications and pathogenesis of diabetic wound complications. Am J Pathol 2011;
178: 22152223.
38. Hamed S, Ullmann Y, Egozi D, et al. Fibronectin potentiates topical erythropoietin-induced wound repair in diabetic
mice. J Invest Dermatol 2011; 131: 13651374.
39. Rathur HM and Boulton AJ. Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of diabetic neuropathy. J Bone Joint
Surg Br 2005; 87: 16051610.
40. Synder BJ and Waldman BJ. Venous thromboembolism
prophylaxis and wound healing in patients undergoing
major orthopedic surgery. Adv Skin Wound Care 2009; 22:
311315.
41. Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenbilt G, et al. Meta
analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin in cardiovascular disease
in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 421431.
42. Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL, et al. The prevalence by staged
severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy,
and nephropathy in a population-based cohort: the Rochester
Diabetic Neuropathy Study. Neurology 1993; 43: 817824.
43. Basic-Kes V, Zavoreo I, Rotim K, et al. Recommendations
for diabetic polyneuropathy treatment. Acta Clin Croat
2011; 50: 289302.
44. Pineda C, Espinosa R and Pena A. Radiographic imaging
in osteomyelitis: the role of plain radiography, computed
tomography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging,
and scintigraphy. Semin Plast Surg 2009; 23: 8089.
45. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, et al. Executive summary: 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical
practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 16791684.
46. Gil HC and Morrison WB. MR imaging of diabetic foot
infection. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2004; 8: 189198.
47. Morrison WB and Ledermann HP. Work-up of the diabetic
foot. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40: 11711192.
48. Dinh MT, Abad CL and Safdar N. Diagnostic accuracy of
the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis, underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. Clin
Infect Dis 2008; 47: 519527.
49. Craig JG, Amin MB, Wu K, et al. Osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot: MR imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiology
1997; 203: 849855.
50. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, et al. Diagnosis and
treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004;
39: 885910.
51. Abdulrazak A, Bitar ZI, Al-Shamali AA, et al.
Bacteriological study of diabetic foot infections. J Diabetes
Complications 2005; 19: 138141.
52. Game FL. Osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot: diagnosis and
management. Med Clin North Am 2013; 97: 947956.
38
53. Berendt AR, Peters EJ, Bakker K, et al. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and systematic
review of treatment. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008; 24:
S145S161.
54. Jeffcoate WJ and Lipsky BA. Controversies in diagnosing
and managing osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes. Clin
Infect Dis 2004; 39: S115S122.
55. Peters EJ and Lipsky BA. Diagnosis and management of
infection in the diabetic foot. Med Clin North Am 2013; 97:
911946.
56. Molines-Darroso RJ, Lazaro-Martinez JL, Aragon-Sanchez
FJ, et al. Analysis of transfer lesions in patients who underwent surgery for diabetic foot ulcers located on the plantar aspect of the metatarsal heads. Diabet Med 2013; 30:
973976.
57. Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Cohen V, et al. Prediction of diabetic
foot ulcer occurrence using commonly available clinical
information: the Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care
2006; 29: 12021207.
58. Ford CN, Reinhard ER, Yeh D, et al. Interim analysis of
a prospective, randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure
versus the healthpoint system in the management of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 49: 5561.
59. Robson MC, Phillips TJ, Falanga V, et al. Randomized
trial of topically applied repifermin (recombinant human
keratinocyte growth factor-2) to accelerate wound healing
in venous ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 2001; 9: 347352.
60. Dwyer AJ, John B, Mam MK, et al. Nutritional status and
wound healing in open fractures of the lower limb. Int
Orthop 2005; 29: 251254.
61. Collins N. The difference between albumin and prealbumin.
Adv Skin Wound Care 2001; 14: 235236.
62. Looking under the bandage: evidence based nutritional
care for pressure ulcers. 2004, http://www.allrefer.com/
63. Bates-Jensen BM and MacLean CH. Quality indicators
for the care of pressure ulcers in vulnerable elders. J Am
Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: S409S416.
64. Lavery L, Higgins K, Lanctot D, et al. Home monitoring of
foot skin temperatures to prevent ulceration. Diabetes Care
2004; 27: 26422647.
65. Cavanagh PR. Therapeutic footwear for people with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2004; 20: S51S55.
66. Mueller MJ, Diamond JE, Sinacore DR, et al. Total contact
casting in treatment of diabetic plantar ulcers. Controlled
clinical trial. Diabetes Care 1989; 12: 384388.
67. Kim PJ and Steinberg JS. Wound care: biofilm and its
impact on the latest treatment modalities for ulcerations of
the diabetic foot. Semin Vasc Surg 2012; 25: 7074.
68. Davis SC, Ricotti C, Cazzaniga A, et al. Microscopic and
physiologic evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 2329.
69. Stewart PS and Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 2001; 358: 135138.
70. Stoodley P, Saur K, Davies DG, et al. Biofilms as complex
differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol 2002; 56:
187209.
71. James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, et al. Biofilms in chronic
wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 3744.
72. Kavros SJ, Miller JL and Hanna SW. Treatment of ischemic
wounds with noncontact, low-frequency ultrasound: the
39
Andrews et al.
of diabetic mice treated with adult murine bone marrow
stromal progenitor cells. Wound Repair Regen 2007; 15:
305309.
91. Nambu M, Kishimoto S, Nakamura S, et al. Accelerated
wound healing in healing-impaired db/db mice by autologous adipose tissue-derived stromal cells combined with
atelocollagen matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62: 317321.
92. Tark KC, Hong JW, Kim YS, et al. Effects of human cord
blood mesenchymal stem cells on cutaneous wound healing
in leprdb mice. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65: 565572.
93. Fu X and Li H. Mesenchymal stem cells and skin wound
repair and regeneration: possibilities and questions. Cell
Tissue Res 2009; 335: 317321.
94. Wu Y, Zhao RC and Tredget EE. Concise review: bone
marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells in cutaneous repair
and regeneration. Stem Cells 2010; 28: 905915.
95. Badiavas EV and Falanga V. Treatment of chronic wounds
with bone marrow-derived cells. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:
510516.
96. Falanga V, Iwamoto S, Chartier M, et al. Autologous bone
marrow-derived cultured mesenchymal stem cells delivered
in a fibrin spray accelerate healing in murine and human
cutaneous wounds. Tissue Eng 2007; 13: 12991312.
97. Yoshikawa T, Mitsuno H, Nonaka I, et al. Wound therapy by
marrow mesenchymal cell transplantation. Plast Reconstr
Surg 2008; 121: 860877.
98. Lawall H, Bramlage P and Amann B. Stem cell and progenitor cell therapy in peripheral artery disease. A critical
appraisal. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103: 696709.
99. Wu Y, Chen L, Scott PG, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells
enhance wound healing through differentiation and angiogenesis. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 26482659.
100. Zou JP, Huang S, Peng Y, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells/
multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs): potential