ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of two different autolytic debridment on subcutaneous wounds. MethodsThirty-eight patients with subcutaneous wounds treated from January to December 2015 were numbered according to the sequence of admission, and were randomly divided into trial group and control group, with 19 patients in each group. All the patients had yellow surface. Patients in the control group were treated with amorphous hydrogel, while those in the trial group were treated with both amorphous hydrogel and alginate dressing. Then, we compared the two groups in terms of the debridement time, frequency of changing dressing, granulation growth, wound contraction rate at the end of debridement period, and leakage rate. ResultsThe debridement time in the trial group was (21.11±5.86) days, and it was significantly shorter than that in the control group[(26.69±9.68) days] (P<0.05); the frequency of changing dressing was (7.21±2.12) times, which was less than that in the control group[(9.37±3.32) times] (P<0.05); and granulation growth was better than that in the control group (2.58±0.61 vs. 1.95±0.71, P<0.05). The wound contraction rate at the end of debridement period in the trial group was (47.00±26.24)%, which was higher than that in the control group[(29.03±22.62)%] (P<0.05); and the leakage rate (0.0%) was lower than the control group (3.3%) (P<0.05). ConclusionUsing amorphous hydrogel and alginate dressing for subcutaneous wounds is better than amorphous hydrogel alone for autolytic debridement, and can lower the leakage rate.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical efficacy of ultrasound debridement combined with autolytic debridement in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.MethodsA total of 60 diabetic foot ulcers patients who were diagnosed and treated in Jinshan Hospital of Fudan University from April 2019 to April 2020 were enrolled in the study and randomly divided into two groups, with 30 cases in each group. The trial group received autolytic cleansing combined with ultrasound debridement treatment, and the control group only received autolytic debridement treatment. The baseline conditions, wound treatment efficacy, number of dressing changes, length of hospital stay, treatment cost, wound healing time, wound shrinkage rate, and the time required for the wound to turn into 100% red granulation were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in gender, age, duration of diabetes or Wagner grade of diabetic foot between the two groups (P>0.05). The efficacy of wound healing in the trial group was better than that in the control group (Z=−2.146, P=0.032). The number of dressing changes [(11.76±2.23) vs. (17.34±4.43) times] and the length of stay [(18.03±3.73) vs. (25.43±4.43) d] in the trial group were lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The difference in treatment cost between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The wound healing time of the trial group [(48.43±18.34) vs. (65.24±19.62) d], the wound shrinkage rate [(78.35±8.34)% vs. (56.53±6.54)%] and the time required for the wound to turn into 100% red granulation [(16.34±2.42) vs. (24.55±3.23) d] were better than those of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). During the treatment process, no patient in the trial group had wound bleeding and had difficulty in stopping bleeding during ultrasonic debridement, and no patient had intolerable pain related to ultrasonic debridement. No patients in either group withdrew early.ConclusionsUltrasound debridement combined with autolytic debridement can effectively improve the curative effect of patients with diabetic foot ulcers and shorten the wound healing time. Therefore, it is worthy of promotion and application in the wound care of patients with diabetic foot ulcers.