4.3 Article

Comparison of characteristics and healing course of diabetic foot ulcers by etiological classification: Neuropathic, ischemic, and neuro-ischemic type

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 528-535

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.03.013

关键词

Age; Diabetic foot ulcer; Healing time; Outcome; Risk factor; Skin perfusion pressure

资金

  1. National Center for Global Health and Medicine [22-120]
  2. St. Luke's Life Science Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To identify differences in the characteristics of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) according to their etiological classification and to compare their healing time. Methods: Over a 4.5-year period, 73 patients with DFUs were recruited. DFUs were etiologically classified as being of neuropathic, ischemic, or neuro-ischemic origin. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize study subjects, foot-related factors, and healing outcome and time. Duration of healing was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healing time among the three types was compared using the log rank test. Results: The number of patients manifesting neuropathic, ischemic, and neuro-ischemic ulcers was 30, 20, and 14, respectively. Differences were identified for age, diabetes duration, body mass index, hypertension, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients with neuro-ischemic ulcers had better ankle-brachial index, skin perfusion pressure (SPP), and transcutaneous oxygen pressure values compared to those with ischemic ulcers. The average time in which 50% of patients had healed wounds was 70, 113, and 233 days for neuropathic, neuro-ischemic, and ischemic ulcers, respectively. Main factors associated with healing were age and SPP values. Conclusions: Based on the etiological ulcer type, DFU healing course and several patient factors differed. Failure to consider the differences in DFU etiology may have led to heterogeneity of results in previous studies on DFUs. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据