Incidence and Characteristics of Suspected Deep Tissue Pressure Injuries on the Foot and Ankle: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the incidence of suspected deep tissue pressure injuries (DTPIs) in patients admitted to the hospital, describe their location, identify the related hospital length of stay, and explore any associations between intrinsic or extrinsic factors relevant to DTPI development. DESIGN: Retrospective review/audit of clinical data. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: We reviewed pertinent medical data from patients reported as developing a suspected deep tissue injury during hospital admission from January 2018 to March 2020. The study setting was a large tertiary public health service in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Patients who developed a suspected deep tissue injury during hospital admission between January 2018 and March 2020 were identified through the hospital online risk recording system. Data were extracted from the relevant health records, including demographics, admission data, and pressure injury data. The incidence rate was expressed per 1000 patient admissions. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine associations between the time (days) to develop a suspected deep tissue injury and intrinsic (patient level) or extrinsic (hospital level) factors. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-one pressure injuries were recorded during the audit period. A minority (9.5%; n = 62) of patients developed a suspected deep tissue injury; all were located on the foot and ankle. The incidence of suspected deep tissue injuries was 0.18 per 1000 patient admissions. The mean length of stay among patients who developed a DTPI was 59.0 (SD = 51.9) days as compared to a mean of 4.2 (SD = 11.8) days for all patients admitted to the hospital during this period. Multivariate regression analysis determined that the longer time (in days) to develop a pressure injury was associated with having a higher body weight (Coef = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.04; P = .043), not having off-loading (Coef =-3.63; 95% CI =-6.99 to -0.27; P = .034), and an increasing number of ward transfers (Coef = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.72; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings identified factors that may play a role in the development of suspected deep tissue injuries. A review of risk stratification in health services may be beneficial, with consideration to adjustments of procedural assessments of patients at risk.

Healing rates in diabetes-related foot ulcers using low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Current clinical practice varies around debridement techniques used to promote healing of diabetes-related foot ulcers. This randomised controlled study will compare healing rates for diabetes-related foot ulcers treated with low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement. Individuals with diabetes-related foot ulcers being managed by podiatry at a metropolitan hospital were screened against study criteria. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either the non-surgical sharps debridement group or the low frequency ultrasonic debridement group and received weekly treatment for 6 months. Participants also completed a quality of life measure and visual analogue pain scale. RESULTS: This trial was ended early due to recruitment issues. Ten participants with 14 ulcers participated. Results were analysed using a survival analysis approach. Ulcers treated with non-surgical sharps debridement healed more quickly (61.6 days ± 24.4) compared with low frequency ultrasonic debridement (117.6 days ± 40.3). In both groups, quality of life was observed to improve as ulcers healed and pain levels reduced as ulcers improved. Observations from this study found faster healing using non-surgical sharps debridement. However, these results are unable to be generalised due to the small sample size. Further research is recommended. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12612000490875.

A Systematic Review to Compare the Effect of Low-frequency Ultrasonic Versus Nonsurgical Sharp Debridement on the Healing Rate of Chronic Diabetes-related Foot Ulcers.

Management of diabetes-related foot ulcers often involves debridement of devitalized tissue, but evidence regarding the most effective debridement method is limited. PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical sharp debridement (NSSD) versus low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) for diabetes-related foot ulceration in adults. METHOD: Published studies (earliest date available to April 2017) comparing healing outcomes of LFUD- and NSSD-treated foot ulcers in adults were considered. The quality of publications that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the PEDro scale, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to compare percentage healed and percentage of ulcer size reduction. RESULTS: Of the 259 publications identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria but 2 of the 4 did not contain sufficient patient outcomes details for meta-analysis, leaving a sample size of 173 patients. Outcome data for the 2 studies included percentage of ulcers healed between the 2 debridement methods. This difference was not significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.76-1.11). The risk of bias for both studies was low. CONCLUSION: No difference in healing outcomes between NSSD and LFUD debridement of diabetic foot ulcers was found. Well-designed, controlled clinical studies are needed to address the current paucity of studies examining the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of debridement methods.

Does the new low-frequency ultrasonic debridement technology pose an infection control risk for clinicians, patients, and the clinic environment?

BACKGROUND: Low-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) is a technology that uses sound waves conducted through saline mist to debride wound tissue. Whilst this technology purportedly reduces wound-healing times, the airborne mist generated is potentially problematic. Theoretically, the saline mist could carry an increased number of microbes into the surrounding environment, posing an infection control risk to the patient, clinician, and clinical environment. This research aimed to establish the degree and extent to which there is microbial spread during the use of, and following the use of, LFUD. The total number of colony forming units was identified for use of LFUD without the suction attachment (control) and with the suction attachment (intervention). METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study with repeated measures across each treatment (before, during, and after). Quota sampling in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design was undertaken so that half of the 24 treatments were conducted at each health service (Monash Health vs Peninsula Health), in different treatment environments (inpatient vs outpatient), and half were conducted with and without suction. The use of suction was not randomized but was determined at the treating clinician's discretion. Patients treated in the inpatient environment lay on their beds, whereas patients in the outpatient environment sat in a treatment chair. RESULTS: There was higher microbial count during treatment (P < .001) with a higher microbial count associated with lower ultrasound amplitude (P = .028), lower saline flow rate (P = .010), no suction attachment (P = > .001), and a larger wound area (P = .002). All were independently associated with greater microorganism aerosolization. There was no correlation between the type of handpiece selected, the presence of wound infection, and the treatment time or treatment environment. CONCLUSIONS: This research has assisted in developing guidelines for cleaning of equipment and environments following treatment, as well as around the use of personal protective equipment required to protect the staff member and the patient during the use of LFUD. Additionally, recommendations have been made regarding the specific LFUD settings to reduce the risk of cross-infection to the clinic environment. These include selecting a higher ultrasound amplitude and saline flow rate as well as the use of suction where clinically possible.

Comparison of healing rate in diabetes-related foot ulcers with low frequency ultrasonic debridement versus non-surgical sharps debridement: a randomised trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulceration has been reported as the leading cause of hospital admission and amputation in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes-related foot ulcers require multidisciplinary management and best practice care, including debridement, offloading, dressings, management of infection, modified footwear and management of extrinsic factors.Ulcer debridement is a commonly applied management approach involving removal of non-viable tissue from the ulcer bed. Different methods of debridement have been reported in the literature including autolytic debridement via moist wound healing, mechanical debridement utilising wet to dry dressings, theatre based sharps debridement, biological debridement, non-surgical sharps debridement and newer technology such as low frequency ultrasonic debridement. METHODS: People with diabetes and a foot ulcer, referred to and treated by the Podiatry Department at Monash Health and who meet the inclusion criteria will be invited to participate in this randomised controlled trial. Participants will be randomly and equally allocated to either the non-surgical sharps debridement (control) or low frequency ultrasonic debridement (intervention) group (n = 322 ulcers/n = 108 participants).Where participants have more than one ulcer, only the participant will be randomised, not the ulcer. An investigator not involved in participant recruitment or assessment will be responsible for preparing the random allocation sequence and envelopes.Each participant will receive weekly treatment for six months including best practice podiatric management. Each ulcer will be measured on a weekly basis by calculating total area in centimetres squared. Measurement will be undertaken by a trained research assistant to ensure outcomes are blinded from the treating podiatrist. Another member of the research team will assess the final primary outcome. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of this study is to compare healing rates for diabetes-related foot ulcers using non-surgical sharps debridement versus low frequency ultrasonic debridement over a six month period. The primary outcome measure for this study is the proportion of ulcers healed by the six month follow-up period.Secondary outcomes will include a quality of life measure, assessment of pain and health care resource use between the two treatment modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12612000490875.