Clinical effects of tibial periosteal distraction combined with antibiotic bone cement in treating diabetic foot ulcer
10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20241007-00375
- VernacularTitle:胫骨骨膜牵张术联合抗生素骨水泥治疗糖尿病足溃疡的临床效果
- Author:
Yan CHEN
1
;
Lei FENG
;
Ting HUANG
;
Yangyang ZHENG
;
Jie MA
;
Jian WU
Author Information
1. 甘肃省人民医院烧伤科，兰州 730000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Diabetic foot;
Pain;
Ankle brachial index;
Peripheral nerves;
Tibial periosteal distraction;
Blood circulation;
Antibiotic bone cement;
Wound repair
- From:
Chinese Journal of Burns
2025;41(7):655-664
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the clinical effects of tibial periosteal distraction combined with antibiotic bone cement in treating diabetic foot ulcer.Methods:The study was a retrospective observational study. From March 2021 to March 2024, 52 patients with diabetic foot ulcers who met the inclusion criteria were admitted to Gansu Provincial People's Hospital, including 25 males and 27 females, aged 34-77 years. According to the treatment methods used by the patients, they were divided into control group (22 cases) treated with antibiotic bone cement alone and combined group (30 cases) treated with tibial periosteal distraction combined with antibiotic bone cement. Toe amputation rate, limb amputation rate, length of hospitalization, and ulcer healing time-consuming of patients were recorded. Before the first treatment and 3 weeks after the last treatment, the ankle skin temperature and ankle-brachial index of the affected foot were measured routinely, the pain of the affected foot was evaluated by using visual analog scale (VAS), and the peripheral nerve function of the affected foot was evaluated by 10 g nylon thread examination (denoted as 10 g nylon thread test value). Three weeks after the last treatment, the clinical efficacy of patients was evaluated and the overall rate of clinical efficacy was calculated.Results:There were no statistically significant differences in the comparison of toe amputation rate and limb amputation rate of patients in the 2 groups ( P>0.05). The length of hospitalization and ulcer healing time-consuming of patients in combined group were (23±5) and (41±6) d, respectively, which were significantly shorter than (27±5) and (46±6) d in control group (with t values of 3.08 and 3.18, respectively, both P values <0.05). The ankle skin temperature of the affected foot of patients in combined group was (34.1±1.5) ℃, and the ankle-brachial index was 0.72±0.08 three weeks after the last treatment, which were significantly higher than (32.1±1.6) ℃ and 0.58±0.09 before the first treatment within the group (with t values of 5.10 and 6.37, respectively, P<0.05) and (31.8±1.1) ℃ and 0.59±0.09 three weeks after the last treatment in control group (with t values of 6.88 and 5.49, respectively, P<0.05). The pain VAS score of the affected foot of patients in combined group 3 weeks after the last treatment was significantly lower than that before the first treatment within the group and 3 weeks after the last treatment in control group (with t values of 8.16 and 6.83, respectively, both P values <0.05), and the 10 g nylon thread test value was significantly higher than that before the first treatment within the group and 3 weeks after the last treatment in control group (with t values of 6.15 and 4.23, respectively, both P values <0.05). Three weeks after the last treatment, the overall rate of clinical efficacy of patients in combined group was 96.7% (29/30), which was significantly higher than 63.6% (14/22) in control group, χ2=7.51, P<0.05. Conclusions:Tibial periosteal distraction combined with antibiotic bone cement has good clinical effects in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. It can shorten the length of patients' hospitalization, promote the healing of the ulcers, reduce the pain in the affected foot, and improve the blood supply and peripheral nerve function in the affected foot.
