Cited by 963Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementWound Healing and TreatmentsSurgical site infection prevention

Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Armstrong, David G, Lavery, Lawrence A·2005·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Diabetic foot wounds, particularly those secondary to amputation, are very complex and difficult to treat. We investigated whether negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) improves the proportion and rate of wound healing after partial foot amputation in patients with diabetes.Methods We enrolled 162 patients into a 16-week, 18-centre, randomised clinical trial in the USA. Inclusion criteria consisted of partial foot amputation wounds up to the transmetatarsal level and evidence of adequate perfusion. Patients who were randomly assigned to NPWT (n=77) received treatment with dressing changes every 48 h. Control patients (n=85) received standard moist wound care according to consensus guidelines. NPWT was delivered through the Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) Therapy System. Wounds were treated until healing or completion of the 112-day period of active treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study has been registered with , number NCT00224796.Findings More patients healed in the NPWT group than in the control group (43 [56%] vs 33 [39%], p=0.040). The rate of wound healing, based on the time to complete closure, was faster in the NPWT group than in controls (p=0.005). The rate of granulation tissue formation, based on the time to 76-100% formation in the wound bed, was faster in the NPWT group than in controls (p=0.002). The frequency and severity of adverse events (of which the most common was wound infection) were similar in both treatment groups.Interpretation NPWT delivered by the VAC Therapy System seems to be a safe and effective treatment for complex diabetic foot wounds, and could lead to a higher proportion of healed wounds, faster healing rates, and potentially fewer re-amputations than standard care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67695-7

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a meta-analysis of 11 multicenter randomized clinical trials of 655 participants with noninfected, nonischemic diabetic foot ulcers, patients receiving placenta-derived products had a higher incidence of complete resolution of diabetic foot ulcer at 12 to 16 weeks than those with similar care and an alginate or foam control dressing (66.9% vs 34.1%; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.67-2.39).

    “In a meta-analysis of 11 multicenter randomized clinical trials of 655 participants with noninfected, nonischemic diabetic foot ulcers, patients receiving placenta-derived products had a higher incidence of complete resolution of diabetic foot ulcer at 12 to 16 weeks than those with similar care and an alginate or foam control dressing (66.9% vs 34.1%; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.67-2.39;P < .001).68”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

  • Placenta-derived products have a higher likelihood of complete healing at 12-16 wk compared with control dressing (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.67-2.39; P < .001), based on a meta-analysis of 11 multicenter randomized clinical trials involving 655 people with diabetic foot ulcers.

    “Placenta-derived products Contain growth factors, collagen-rich extracellular matrix, and cells that might accelerate wound healing Higher likelihood of complete healing at 12-16 wk compared with control dressing (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.67-2.39;P < .001).[66][67][68] Data from a meta-analysis of 11 multicenter randomized clinical trials involving 655 people with diabetic foot ulcers.”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Armstrong, D. G., & Lavery, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Armstrong, David G
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
366
Issue
9498
Pages
1704-1710
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2148759729
Cited by
963
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 68
FWCI
27.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Kinetic Concepts
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
Keywords
negative pressure wound therapy, diabetic foot, partial foot amputation, wound healing, granulation tissue formation, wound infection, diabetes mellitus
MeSH terms
Air Pressure, Amputation, Surgical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reoperation, Vacuum, Wound Healing, Wounds and Injuries, Diabetic Foot

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review