Effectiveness of bridge V.A.C. dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

Objectives: This is a prospective study of the clinical efficacy of the V.A.C. Granufoam Bridge Dressing for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Materials and methods: Five consecutive patients with diabetic foot ulcers were treated with V.A.C. Granufoam Bridge Dressings and studied over a period of 22–48 days. The indications for treatment included diabetic patients with open ray amputation wounds and wounds post-drainage for abscess with exposed deep structures. Clinical outcome was measured in terms of reduction in wound dimensions, presence of wound granulation, microbial clearance, and development of wound complications. Results: Our results showed that with V.A.C. therapy, wound healing occurred in all patients. The number of dressings required ranged from 8 to 10. The baseline average wound size was 23.1 cm2. Wound areas shrunk by 18.4–41.7%. All subjects achieved 100% wound bed granulation with an average length of treatment of 33 days. Microbial clearance was achieved in all cases. All wounds healed by secondary intention in one case and four cases required split-thickness skin grafting. Conclusion: The V.A.C. Granufoam Bridge Dressing is effective in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. It promotes reduction of wound area, wound bed granulation, and microbial clearance. By allowing placement of the suction pad outside the foot, it allowed patients to wear protective shoes and to walk non-weight bearing with crutches during V.A.C. therapy

A phase II randomized trial comparing radiotherapy with concurrent weekly cisplatin or weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced cervical cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose/Objective</p> <p>This is a prospective comparison of weekly cisplatin to weekly paclitaxel as concurrent chemotherapy with standard radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma.</p> <p>Materials/Methods</p> <p>Between May 2000 and May 2004, 31 women with FIGO stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer or with postsurgical pelvic recurrence were enrolled into this phase II study and randomized to receive on a weekly basis either 40 mg/m²Cisplatin (group I; 16 patients) or 50 mg/m²paclitaxel (group II; 15 patients) concurrently with radiotherapy. Median total dose to point A was 74 Gy (range: 66-92 Gy) for group I and 66 Gy (range: 40-98 Gy) for group II. Median follow-up time was 46 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patient and tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean number of chemotherapy cycles was also comparable with 87% and 80% of patients receiving at least 4 doses in groups I and II, respectively. Seven patients (44%) of group I and 8 patients (53%) of group II developed tumor recurrence. The Median Survival time was not reached for Group I and 53 months for group II. The proportion of patients surviving at 2 and 5 years was 78% and 54% for group I and 73% and 43% for group II respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This small prospective study shows that weekly paclitaxel does not provide any clinical advantage over weekly cisplatin for concurrent chemoradiation for advanced carcinoma of the cervix.</p

Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p> <p>For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006.</p> <p>For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered.</p> <p>Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.</p