534296

research-article2014
POI0010.1177/0309364614534296Prosthetics and Orthotics InternationalAndrews et al.

INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR PROSTHETICS
AND ORTHOTICS

Literature Review

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Wound management of chronic diabetic 2015, Vol. 39(1) 2939

The International Society for
Prosthetics and Orthotics 2014
foot ulcers: From the basics to Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
regenerative medicine DOI: 10.1177/0309364614534296
poi.sagepub.com

Karen L Andrews1,2, Matthew T Houdek3 and Lester J Kiemele1

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
1Vascular Ulcer/Wound Healing Clinic, Gonda Vascular Center, Mayo
Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, MN, USA
3Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Europe, the number of adults with diabetes is expected to

Corresponding author:
increase by 42.4% and 20%, respectively.3,4 A major Karen L Andrews, Vascular Ulcer/Wound Healing Clinic, Gonda
increase is also predicted in Africa, with the number of Vascular Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905,
adults with diabetes expected to increase by 98.1% from USA.
2010 to 2030.3,4 The main factors responsible for the Email: andrews.karen@mayo.edu

Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015

30 Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)
increase in patients with diabetes are aging of the popula-
tion 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 rep-
resent 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 moni-
toring 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
Diabetes and impaired healing
With the increasing prevalence of diabetes around the
world, understanding the mechanisms responsible for poor
diabetic wound healing is an important public health issue.
The increased risk of chronic ulcer formation stems from
disruption of the complex process of wound healing by the
pathophysiological abnormalities associated with diabe-
tes.1820 Wound healing is a dynamic interactive process
involving coagulation, inflammation, granulation tissue
formation, and tissue remodeling.18,21 Analysis of human
diabetic ulcers has revealed the differential expression of
growth factors, chemokines, cytokines, and their recep-
tors, which are critical to several phases of the normal
wound healing process.22,23 Matrix-metalloproteinases
involved in tissue remodeling are also differentially
expressed in chronic wounds, causing the dysfunctional
breakdown of the extracellular matrix.24,25 Macrophages
isolated from the wounds of diabetic mice have exhibited
a decreased ability to remove dead cells, resulting in a pro-
longed inflammatory response.26,27
Tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-), a potent proinflam-
matory cytokine, contributes to the stimulation of fibro-
blasts and keratinocytes, the expression of growth factors,
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
and upregulation of antimicrobial defenses.28 In normal
wound healing, the highest levels of TNF- are seen from
12 to 24 h after wounding.29 After completing the prolif-
eration phase of wound healing, TNF- returns to basal
levels. During the early phase of wound repair, it is pre-
dominantly expressed in polymorphonuclear leukocytes
and later by macrophages. It is also expressed in the hyper-
prolific epithelium at the wound edge. In diabetic wound
healing, impaired fibroblast proliferation has been linked
to increased levels of TNF-.30 The high levels of TNF-
inhibit angiogenesis, proliferation, differentiation, migra-
tion, and increase apoptosis. TNF- inhibition attenuates
the impact of diabetes-enhanced TNF- which offers
potentially new therapeutic avenues for treatment of
chronic diabetic foot ulcers.31
Diabetes is characterized by significantly increased
cross-linking and nonenzymatic glycation of collagen and
elevated levels of advanced glycation end products
(AGEs).32,33 Blocking the receptor for advanced glycation
end products (RAGEs) restores the wound healing proper-
ties of diabetic (Db/Db) mice.34 Hyperglycemic animals
have been shown to have significantly higher concentra-
tions of glycated collagen and higher levels of collagenase
activity.35 Furthermore, diabetic (Db/Db) mice have also
been shown to have a prolonged inflammatory phase with
sustained expression of the inflammatory cytokines.36
Diabetic skin (both murine and human cadaveric) is bio-
mechanically inferior to nondiabetic skin.37 These results
suggest the defect in tissue integrity may be inherent to
diabetic skin at baseline.
Treatments that enhance diabetic wound healing are
often associated with reducing inflammatory cytokines in
the diabetic wound environment.38 An important yet still
unanswered question during diabetic wound healing is how
a high-glucose environment affects chemotactic activity.
Diabetic foot ulcers
Diabetic neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease (PAD)
are usually the major factors involved in diabetic foot
ulcers. These two factors may act alone, together, or in
combination with other conditions, such as microvascular
disease, biomechanical abnormalities, limited joint mobil-
ity, and increase susceptibility to infection.39,40
For every 1% increase in hemoglobin A1c, there is a
corresponding 26% risk of PAD.41
Neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes.
This is characterized by a progressive loss of peripheral
nerve fibers caused by decreased blood flow and high gly-
cemic levels.42,43 The duration and intensity of hyperglyce-
mia strongly influences the severity of the neuropathy.42
Neuropathy leads to an insensate and sometimes deformed
foot, often with an abnormal walking pattern. In people
with neuropathy, minor trauma (ill-fitting shoes, walking
barefoot, or an acute injury) can precipitate a chronic ulcer.
Andrews et al. 31
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.
Figure 2. Chronic nonhealing wound overlying prominent
second metatarsal head following debridement (patients X-rays
shown in Figure 1(a) and (b)).
Diabetes may cause stiffening of capsular structures
and ligaments. Decreased ankle, subtalar, and first met-
atarsal phalangeal (MTP) joint mobility results in
higher focal plantar pressures with increased risk of
ulceration. Loss of sensation, foot deformities (Figure
1(a) and (b)), and limited joint mobility can result in
abnormal biomechanical loading of the foot.16 Whatever
the primary cause, whenever patients continue walking
on the insensate foot, subsequent healing is impaired
(Figure 2).
Imaging
Plain radiographs help identify foreign bodies, bone
deformities, gas in the tissues, or evidence of osteomyeli-
tis. Plain films lack sensitivity for detecting early osteomy-
elitis, especially in the presence of osteopenia associated
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
with neuropathy, since 30%50% of bone loss is required
to produce detectable changes.44 It is helpful if radio-
graphic findings are positive, but if these are negative, it
does not exclude the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. Despite
the poor predictive value of a normal radiograph, it is rec-
ommended that a plain radiograph be taken in all patients
presenting with foot ulcers.45 Plain films should be
repeated in 23 weeks as radiographic changes of osteo-
myelitis may be delayed.
Indium plus bone scan and magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) are used when the diagnosis is equivocal to help
gauge the extent of bone and soft tissue infection. An MRI
might be needed to better define the presence of bone or
deep soft tissue infection.46,47
MRI scans have the advantage over radionucleotide
bone scans of being able to accurately define the anatomic
location and extent of inflammatory changes or any soft
tissue infection in the foot, including sinus tracts, deep tis-
sue necrosis, or abscesses. A meta-analysis comparing the
performance of MRI scans to bone pathology for the diag-
nosis of osteomyelitis showed a sensitivity of 90% and
specificity of 79%.48 The lower specificity in diabetes is
usually attributable to the difficulty of distinguishing
osteomyelitis from other causes of bone edema, in particu-
lar Charcot-neuroarthropathy.49
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, tender-
ness, pain, and induration).50 Patients with chronic ulcers
or those who have recently received antibiotic treatment
often have a polymicrobial infection with aerobic gram-
negative bacilli and gram-positive cocci.51
32 Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)

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 infec-
tion, 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
Approaches to the management of osteomyelitis in dia-
betic 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 proba-
bly 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 sedi-
mentation 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 manage-
ment 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 sur-
gery 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 treat-
ment and reduces the likelihood of bacterial resistance
to antibiotics.
It is important to review the pros and cons of each
approach with patients on an individual basis.52
Retrospective studies suggest that long-term treatment (at
least 46 weeks) with drugs that penetrate well into bone
(fluoroquinolones) can produce a remission of infection.54
Risk factor modification
Risk factor identification is fundamental for effective pre-
ventative 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 indi-
viduals with diabetes without foot ulcers.57 Nearly all
patients with lower limb ulcers can benefit from evidence-
based 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 indi-
cate that even when combining these small studies, the
results do not provide solid conclusions regarding the effi-
cacy 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

Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015

Andrews et al. 33
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 high-
risk foot conditions. This examination should assess pro-
tective sensation, foot structure and biomechanics, vascular
status, and skin integrity. Clinicians should perform a com-
prehensive physical examination on all patients with
ulcers, giving particular attention to the wound character-
istics, 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 moni-
toring 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 grad-
ually to minimize the formation of blisters and ulcers.
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 evi-
dence that offloading accelerates ulcer healing comes from
studies using total contact casting for healing of nonin-
fected neuropathic ulcers. Neuropathic ulcers that resisted
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
healing for many months or years typically heal in about 6
weeks in a total contact cast.66
Debridement and biofilm disruption
Wound debridement helps to correct cellular and molecu-
lar abnormalities. The fundamental goal of basic wound
care involves keeping the wound base free of nonviable
tissue to facilitate wound healing. More recently, the treat-
ment of diabetic foot ulcerations has focused on biofilm
reduction.67 Biofilm is defined as bacterial and/or fungal
colonies populating the surface of wounds that are highly
resistant to antibiotic treatment.68,69 Biofilm formation is a
multistage process in which microbial cells adhere to the
surface (initially reversible attachment). The subsequent
production of an extracellular matrix containing polysac-
charides, proteins, and DNA results in a firmer attach-
ment.70 Biofilm has been identified in up to 60% of chronic
wounds (greater than 30 days) versus 6% of acute
wounds.71 Biofilm reduction, eradication, and inhibition
are essential considerations in the treatment of chronic dia-
betic foot wounds.67
Debridement is not the only method of biofilm disrup-
tion. The use of low-frequency ultrasound has been benefi-
cial. Ultrasound therapy is typically painless. It requires
multiple treatments (up to five times per week) for 46
weeks. Although direct measure of biofilm disruption has
not been fully elucidated utilizing ultrasound technology,
biofilm disruption may contribute to the reported increase
in healing of chronic wounds.72
Topical therapies
Dressings play an adjunctive role in the treatment of dia-
betic wounds; however, this role can be limited, and dress-
ings 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 loca-
tion, 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
Cellular and/or tissue-based products
Cellular and/or tissue-based products (CTP) include a
number of products derived from human, animal, and
synthetic tissues that have been manufactured, cleaned,
 Table 1. Common wound dressings.
34

Dressing Indications Contraindications Advantages Disadvantages Comments

Gauze Deep wounds, especially with Can traumatize certain
tunneling and undermining wounds
Foam Low- to moderately
exudative wounds
Hydrogels Wound hydration
Transparent films Protection from friction
Alginates Absorb excessive drainage;
fill dead space; autolytic
debridement
Hydrocolloids Semi-permeable dressing for
low to moderate exudate;
autolytic debridement
Silver dressings Malodorous, highly
exudative, slow-healing
wounds; increased wound
bioburden
Excessive wound drainage;
dry wound base; eschar;
deep or tunneling wound
Wound maceration;
excessive drainage
Exudative wounds; bacterial
or fungal skin infections
Dry, minimally draining, or
superficial wounds
Poor skin integrity; infected
ulcers; deep/tunneling
wounds
Cellulitis; systemic infection;
photophobia
Low cost; readily available; If cut, fibers can be retained Needs to be remoistened
fills dead space; retains in wound bed often to maintain a moist
moisture; absorbs exudate; wound environment
mechanically debrides
Maintains wound moisture; Can be costly
absorbs some wound
exudate; insulates wounds
Improves wound hydration; Requires secondary dressing; Stays moist longer than
easily removed; facilitates not occlusive; macerates saline; reduces adherence of
debridement; fills dead space periwound margins; not gauze to wound bed; must
efficacious in highly exudative control for maceration
or infected wounds
Better able to visualize the Can cause further skin May use skin prep to protect
wound; stays in place damage if removed skin from adhesive
incorrectly; nonpermeable
Maintains moist wound Can dehydrate a drier wound; Keep dressing within wound
environment; nonadherent; can needs a secondary dressing; borders; requires secondary
be used on infected wounds ineffective for dry eschar dressing
Malleable; insulates Cannot be used on highly Can be used to frame a
wound; provides moist exudative wounds, over wound to secure dressing;
wound environment; sinus tracks, exposed bone/ can apply over alginate to
autolytically debrides; surface tendon, fragile periwound control drainage
impermeable to bacteria; no tissue or on infected wounds;
secondary dressing required; macerates healthy skin
less frequent dressing changes
Has antibacterial, antifungal, May cause silver staining on Less frequent dressing
and antiviral properties; the skin changes; variety of
improves wound hygiene formulations makes it
a versatile dressing for
different wound situations

Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015

Antimicrobial Inhibit or kill microbes in Worsening infection; Easy to use; readily Will not eradicate a wound Antimicrobial dressings
dressings chronic wounds without the hypersensitivity/reaction to available; less costly than infection; alternative should be continued until the
use of antibiotics the antimicrobial product antibiotics; available without treatment may need to be wound improves
a prescription; less risk used
of resistance; effective at
reducing wound bioburden
Cellular and/or Provide a temporary biologic Infected wounds; significant Provide wound coverage to Expensive; best applied Used for diabetic foot or
tissue-based products barrier to augment wound drainage; osteomyelitis; complete wound closure; by a skilled clinician; may venous stasis ulcers that have
healing by stimulating the cellulitis; tunneling, or eschar reduce healing time and pain; not be covered by certain failed to heal after 6 weeks
recipients own skin cells; that prevents graft adherence improve appearance and commercial insurance of standard wound care;
Wounds that do not respond functional abilities; improve carriers; most products must documentation must confirm
Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)

to previous conservative overall quality of life; less be applied every 12 weeks Type I or Type II diabetes
wound treatment invasive than skin grafting mellitus
Andrews et al. 35
or otherwise altered. CTP products are typically indi-
cated 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 monitor-
ing 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 par-
ticular 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 prolif-
eration 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
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
various growth factors, including vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF), stromal cell-derived factors
(SDF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast
growth factor (FGF), and keratinocyte growth factor
(KGF), allows MSCs to modulate the local tissue envi-
ronment to increase the survival and proliferation of
local repair cells.8587 The addition of MSCs to fibro-
blasts has been shown to accelerate wound closure and
increase the proliferation of keratinocytes, endothelial
cells, and dermal fibroblasts.85,87,88
Preclinical models of diabetic wound healing MSCs
have resulted in new granulation tissue formation,
increased blood vessel formation and cellularity,8992 and
increased wound closure. In the treatment of chronic
wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, MSCs have been
shown to be beneficial.93 Animal studies have shown that
when MSCs are injected into the wounds of chronic
wound model mice, there is an increased rate of wound
closure, reepithelialization, and angiogenesis.94 Small
clinical studies have also shown the effectiveness of
using MSCs in the treatment of chronic wounds.9597 In
one of the largest clinical studies examining the use of
MSCs for the treatment of chronic wounds, MSCs were
added to a dermal replacement in 20 patients and the
authors noted a 90% healing rate, with regeneration of
the native tissue.97
There is accumulating evidence to confirm the efficacy
of stem cells in the treatment of critical limb ischemia.98
Stimulation of angiogenesis and arteriogenesis represents
attractive approaches to the diabetic foot ulcer.
Angiogenesis is essential for wound healing, and multiple
studies have demonstrated the proangiogenic nature of
MSCs and their ability to secrete PDGF, VEGF, and
EGF.90,99,100 A large level I RCT using bone marrow-
derived MSCs in wounds of the limbs was published by
Dash et al.101 This trial showed that MSC therapy signifi-
cantly reduced wound size and increased several clinical
parameters when compared with controls. A study in China
demonstrated improved ulcer healing rates with bone mar-
row mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSC).102
An interdisciplinary approach involving scientists,
biologists, and wound care providers will be important to
develop novel therapies for tissue regeneration and treat-
ment of complex wounds. Hopefully cell-based therapy
will augment angiogenesis, optimize healing, and avoid
amputation.
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 amputa-
tion, especially major amputation, when compared to ther-
apy without HBO (13.63% vs 30.07%).103
36 Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)
Reported benefits of hyperbaric oxygen therapy
(HBOT) include detrimental effect on bacteria via the pro-
duction of oxygen free radicals and enhanced leukocyte
activity.106 Chen et al.107 reported increased limb salvage
rates (78.3%) for infected diabetic wounds with greater
than 10 HBOT treatments. A meta-analysis found no sta-
tistically significant difference in major amputation rate
with adjunctive HBOT (pooled data of five trials with 312
patients).108
Prevention of ulcer recurrence
An adequate care plan must ensure offloading and suffi-
cient arterial blood flow as prerequisites for healing. After
the ulcer heals, the patient and their caregivers must incor-
porate preventative measures in care plans to reduce the
risk of wound reoccurrence. Prevention of ulcer recurrence
is a major clinical challenge, with recurrence rates ranging
from 28% at 12 months to 100% at 40 months.109
A newly healed ulcer is covered with fragile skin; after
complete healing, there is an area of higher density tissue
(scar), and sheering between the different tissue densities
often contributes to new ulcers. The highest incident of
reulceration is in the site of a previous ulceration.
A major goal of preventative treatment is the removal
and prevention of calluses. Removal of plantar calluses
can reduce peak plantar pressure by 26%.110 In addition,
removal of callus can help decrease forces at the site of the
wound.
Conclusion
Advances in treating chronic diabetic wounds are prom-
ising; however, the intrinsic pathophysiologic abnormali-
ties 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 pro-
grams. 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.
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
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 diabe-
tes 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 increas-
ing prevalence of diabetes in South Australia: the relation-
ship 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 rec-
ommendations on advancing the standard of care for treat-
ing 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-Audit-
Executive-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 prog-
nosis 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 man-
agement 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 dia-
betic foot: based upon the International Consensus on the
Diabetic Foot (2007) Prepared by the International Working
Andrews et al. 37
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: ben-
efits of multidisciplinary work and continuous prospective
audit. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 99101.
18. Falanga V. Wound healing and its impairment in the dia-
betic 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 dia-
betic 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 dysfunc-
tion 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 regula-
tion 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 acti-
vation 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 patho-
genesis 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.
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
35. Peppa M, Stavroulakis P and Raptis SA. Advanced gly-
coxidation products and impaired diabetic wound healing.
Wound Repair Regen 2009; 17: 461472.
36. Wetzler C, Kampfer H, Stallmeyer B, et al. Large and sus-
tained induction of chemokines during impaired wound
healing in the genetically diabetic mouse: prolonged persis-
tence 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 biome-
chanical properties of diabetic skin implications and patho-
genesis of diabetic wound complications. Am J Pathol 2011;
178: 22152223.
38. Hamed S, Ullmann Y, Egozi D, et al. Fibronectin potenti-
ates topical erythropoietin-induced wound repair in diabetic
mice. J Invest Dermatol 2011; 131: 13651374.
39. Rathur HM and Boulton AJ. Recent advances in the diag-
nosis 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 sum-
mary: 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical
practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of dia-
betic 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 osteomy-
elitis, underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. Clin
Infect Dis 2008; 47: 519527.
49. Craig JG, Amin MB, Wu K, et al. Osteomyelitis of the dia-
betic 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 Prosthetics and Orthotics International 39(1)
53. Berendt AR, Peters EJ, Bakker K, et al. Diabetic foot osteo-
myelitis: 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 under-
went surgery for diabetic foot ulcers located on the plan-
tar 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 pres-
sure 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 diabe-
tes. 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 coloni-
zation in vivo. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 2329.
69. Stewart PS and Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bac-
teria 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
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
Mayo Clinic experience, 20042006. Adv Skin Wound Care
2007; 20: 221226.
73. Hinchliffe RJ, Valk GD, Apelqvist J, et al. A systematic
review of the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the
healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Diabetes
Metab Res Rev 2008; 24: S119S144.
74. Rayman G, Rayman A, Baker NR, et al. Sustained silver-
releasing dressing in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Br
J Nurs 2005; 14: 109114.
75. Hanson SE, Bentz ML and Hematti P. Mesenchymal
stem cell therapy for nonhealing cutaneous wounds. Plast
Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 510516.
76. Badiavas EV, Abedi M, Butmarc J, et al. Participation of
bone marrow derived cells in cutaneous wound healing. J
Cell Physiol 2003; 196: 245250.
77. Fathke C, Wilson L, Hutter J, et al. Contribution of bone
marrow-derived cells to skin: collagen deposition and
wound repair. Stem Cells 2004; 22: 812822.
78. Sasaki M, Abe R, Fujita Y, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells
are recruited into wounded skin and contribute to wound
repair by transdifferentiation into multiple skin cell type. J
Immunol 2008; 180: 25812587.
79. Caplan AI. Adult mesenchymal stem cells for tissue engi-
neering versus regenerative medicine. J Cell Physiol 2007;
213: 341347.
80. Le Blanc K and Ringden O. Immunomodulation by mes-
enchymal stem cells and clinical experience. J Intern Med
2007; 262: 509525.
81. Uccelli A, Pistoia V and Moretta L. Mesenchymal stem
cells: a new strategy for immunosuppression? Trends
Immunol 2007; 28: 219226.
82. Aggarwal S and Pittenger MF. Human mesenchymal stem
cells modulate allogeneic immune cell responses. Blood
2005; 105: 18151822.
83. Krasnodembskaya A, Song Y, Fang X, et al. Antibacterial
effect of human mesenchymal stem cells is mediated in part
from secretion of the antimicrobial peptide LL-37. Stem
Cells 2010; 28: 22292238.
84. Mei SH, Haitsma JJ, Dos Santos CC, et al. Mesenchymal
stem cells reduce inflammation while enhancing bacterial
clearance and improving survival in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med 2010; 182: 10471057.
85. Chen L, Tredget EE, Wu PY, et al. Paracrine factors of mesen-
chymal stem cells recruit macrophages and endothelial lineage
cells and enhance wound healing. PLoS One 2008; 3: e1886.
86. Gnecchi M, Zhang Z, Ni A, et al. Paracrine mechanisms in
adult stem cell signaling and therapy. Circ Res 2008; 103:
12041219.
87. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, et al. Wound repair
and regeneration. Nature 2008; 453: 314321.
88. Smith AN, Willis E, Chan VT, et al. Mesenchymal stem
cells induce dermal fibroblast responses to injury. Exp Cell
Res 2010; 316: 4854.
89. Di Rocco G, Gentile A, Antonini A, et al. Enhanced heal-
ing of diabetic wounds by topical administration of adipose
tissue-derived stromal cells overexpressing stromal-derived
factor-1: biodistribution and engraftment analysis by biolu-
minescent imaging. Stem Cells Int 2011; 2011: 304562.
90. Javazon EH, Keswani SG, Badillo AT, et al. Enhanced epi-
thelial gap closure and increased angiogenesis in wounds
Andrews et al. 39
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 autolo-
gous 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 pro-
genitor 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 angio-
genesis. Stem Cells 2007; 25: 26482659.
100. Zou JP, Huang S, Peng Y, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells/
multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs): potential
Downloaded from poi.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on February 5, 2015
role in healing cutaneous chronic wounds. Int J Low Extrem
Wounds 2012; 11: 244253.
101. Dash NR, Dash SN, Routray P, et al. Targeting nonhealing
ulcers of lower extremity in human through autologous bone
marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Rejuvenation Res
2009; 12: 359366.
102. Lu D, Chen B, Liang Z, et al. Comparison of bone marrow
mesenchymal stem cells with bone marrow-derived mono-
nuclear cells for treatment of diabetic critical limb ischemia
and foot ulcer: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Diabetes 2011; 92: 2636.
103. Liu R, Li L, Yang M, et al. Systematic review of the effec-
tiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the management
of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Mayo Clin Proc 2013; 88:
166175.
104. Meltzer T and Myers B. The effect of hyperbaric oxygen on
the bursting strengths and the rate of vascularization of skin
wounds in the rat. Am Surg 1986; 52: 659662.
105. Roberts GP and Harding KG. Stimulation of glycosamino-
glycan synthesis and cultured fibroblasts by hyperbaric oxy-
gen. Br J Dermatol 1994; 131: 630633.
106. Cimsit M, Uzun G and Yildiz S. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
as an anti-infective agent. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2009;
7: 10151026.
107. Chen CE, Ko JY, Fong CY, et al. Treatment of diabetic foot
infections with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Foot Ankle Surg
2010; 16: 9195.
108. Kranke P, Bennett MH, Martyn-St James M, et al.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012; 4:CD004123.
109. Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, et al. Treatment
for diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet 2005; 336: 17251735.
110. Singh N, Armstrong DG and Lipsky BA. Preventing foot
ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA 2005; 293: 217228.