Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications - a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

David Dayya; Owen O'Neill; Nusrat Habib; Joanna Moore; Kartik Iyer; Tania B Huedo-Medina

doi:10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000081

Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications - a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2022 May 30;4(1):e000081. doi: 10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000081. eCollection 2022.

Authors

David Dayya^{1

2

3

4}, Owen O'Neill^{1

2

3}, Nusrat Habib⁵, Joanna Moore⁶, Kartik Iyer⁶, Tania B Huedo-Medina⁵

Affiliations

¹ Division of Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, Department of Surgery, Phelps Hospital Northwell Health, Sleepy Hollow, New York, USA.
² Department of Surgery, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra University/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
³ Division of Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York - Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
⁴ Department of Medicine, Greenwich Hospital - Yale New Haven Health System, Greenwich, NY, USA.
⁵ Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
⁶ Department of Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut, USA.

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%-34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.

Objectives: Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?

Study eligibility criteria: All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.

Data sources: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

Participants and interventions: Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.

Main outcomes: Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.

Study selection and analysis: Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.

Results: 10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.

Limitations: The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.

Discussion/conclusion: Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.

Implications: Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.

Keywords: Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation; Health Services Research; Methodology; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Outcomes Research.

Publication types

Systematic Review