Local Management for Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of various local management strategies for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Background: Several surgical and nonsurgical local interventional approaches are available for the treatment of DFUs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatments is unknown, and it remains unclear which approach is the optimal choice for DFU treatment due to limited direct comparisons. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to select the optimal approach to DFU's local management. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. We analyzed data by pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model. A network meta-analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of different interventional approaches in the early (within 12 wk) and late stages (over 12 wk). Results: In all, 141 randomized controlled trials involving 14076 patients and exploring 14 interventional strategies were eligible for inclusion. Most studies (102/141) had at least 1 risk-of-bias dimension. Good consistency was observed during the analysis. Local pairwise comparisons demonstrated obvious differences in the early-stage healing rate and early-stage and late-stage healing times, while no significant difference in the late-stage healing rate or adverse events were noted. surface under the cumulative ranking curves identified the standard of care (SOC) + decellularized dressing (DD), off-loading (OL), and autogenous graft (AG) as the 3 most effective interventions within 12 weeks for both healing rate (97%, mean rank: 1.4; 90%, mean rank: 2.3; 80.8%, mean rank: 3.5, respectively) and healing time (96.7%, mean rank: 1.4; 83.0%, mean rank: 3.0; 76.8%, mean rank: 3.8, respectively). After 12 weeks, local drug therapy (LDT) (89.5%, mean rank: 2.4) and OL (82.4%, mean rank: 3.3) ranked the highest for healing rate, and OL (100.0%, mean rank: 1.0) for healing time. With respect to adverse events, moderate and high risks were detected in the SOC + DD (53.7%, mean rank: 7.0) and OL (24.4%, mean rank: 10.8) groups, respectively. Conclusion: The findings suggest that OL provided considerable benefits for DFU healing in both the early and late stages, but the high risk of adverse events warrants caution. SOC+DD may be the preferred option in the early stages, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.