4.1 Article

Wound healing: Total contact cast vs. custom-made temporary footwear for patients with diabetic foot ulceration

Journal

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 3-11

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03093640701318672

Keywords

total contact cast; orthopaedic footwear; neuropathic ulcer; randomized trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of irremovable total-contact casts (TCC) and custom-made temporary footwear (CTF) to heal neuropathic foot ulcerations in individuals with diabetes. In this prospective clinical trial, 43 patients with plantar ulcer Grade 1 or 2 (Wagner scale) were randomized to one of two off-loading modalities: TCC or CTF. Outcomes assessed were wound surface area reduction (cm 2) and time to wound healing (days) at 2, 4, 8 and 16 weeks. To evaluate safety, possible side effects were recorded at each follow-up visit. The results showed no significant difference in wound surface area reduction (adjusted for baseline wound surface) at 2, 4, 8 or 16 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.10 cm(2); 95% CI -0.92-0.72 at 16 weeks). At 16 weeks, 12 patients had a completely healed ulcer, 6 per group. The median time to healing was shorter for the patients using a cast (52 vs. 90 days, p = 0.26). Five patients with TCC and two with CTF developed device-related complications. It was concluded that: (i) the rate of wound healing is not significantly different for patients treated with CTF or TGC. The difference in wound surface area was small and not significant at any time during follow-up; and (ii) the difference in healing time (38 days) may have attained statistical significance if the numbers in these sub-groups (2 x 6) had been higher. Since there appears to be little difference in effectiveness between both off-loading modalities, further investigation into the benefits of CTF is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available