Use of Biatain dressing material in patients with diabetic foot syndrome: randomized comparative study
Aim. To compare efficiency, safety, and cost of different treatment modalities. Materials and methods. The study included 40 patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, foot and lower leg trophic ulcers at granulation stage I-II (Wagners classification)free from wound infection. The patients were randomi...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN RU |
| Publicado: |
Endocrinology Research Centre
2009
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/de2bbee1489148e28ecf6ef44076e4ac |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Aim. To compare efficiency, safety, and cost of different treatment modalities. Materials and methods. The study included 40 patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, foot and lower leg trophic ulcers at granulation stage I-II (Wagners classification)free from wound infection. The patients were randomized for the treatment during 2 months with a Biatain dressing (Coloplast, Denmark)(group1) and for conventional treatment with the use of an atraumatic mesh dressing (group 2). Biatain dressings were changed every 2-4 (up to 5) daysand conventional dressings once daily. Patients in the two groups were adjusted for age, sex, ulcer type, size and duration, length of antibiotic therapy beforeand during treatment, blood glucose level, and other characteristics (p>0.05). Results. Ulcers healed within 2 months in 70% of the patients in group 1 and in 53.3% in group 2 (insignificant difference, p = 0.48). Other efficiency (medianhealing time, survival curves) and safety parameters were not significantly different either. The cost of treatment by the two methods was comparabledespite a higher cost of Biatain dressings due to their rarer change and economy of material for secondary dressing. When dressings were changed by medicalprofessionals rather than by the patient or his (her) relatives at home, treatment with the use of Biatain dressings proved 1.75 times cheaper. Conclusion. Efficiency and safety of high-tech and conventional dressing materials is comparable. The real difference between the costs of treatment byeither method is significantly smaller than the difference between retail prices of the two materials. Cost effectiveness of high-tech dressings is higher if thetreatment is accomplished in a medical facility. |
|---|