The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Serial surgical debridement: A retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds
Abstract
This investigation was conducted to determine if a correlation exists between wound healing outcomes and serial debridement in chronic venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We retrospectively analyzed the results from two controlled, prospective, randomized pivotal trials of topical wound treatments on 366 VLUs and 310 DFUs over 12 weeks. Weekly wound surface area changes following debridement and 12‐week wound closure rates between centers and patients were evaluated. VLUs had a significantly higher median wound surface area reduction following clinical visits with surgical debridement as compared with clinical visits with no surgical debridement (34%, p=0.019). Centers where patients were debrided more frequently were associated with higher rates of wound closure in both clinical studies (p=0.007 VLU, p=0.015 DFU). Debridement frequency per patient was not statistically correlated to higher rates of wound closure; however, there was some minor evidence of a positive benefit of serial debridement in DFUs (odds ratio—2.35, p=0.069). Our results suggest that frequent debridement of DFUs and VLUs may increase wound healing rates and rates of closure, though there is not enough evidence to definitively conclude a significant effect. Future clinical research in wound care should focus on the relationship between serial surgical wound debridement and improved wound healing outcomes as demonstrated in this study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
O’Donnell, T. F., Passman, M. A., Marston, W. A., Ennis, W. J., Dalsing, M., Kistner, R. L., Lurie, F., Henke, P. K., Gloviczki, M. L., Eklöf, B. G., et al. (2014) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.049 · Cited by 720
Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus
Eriksson, E., Liu, P. Y., Schultz, G. S., Martins‐Green, M. M., Tanaka, R., Weir, D., Gould, L. J., Armstrong, D. G., Gibbons, G. W., Wolcott, R., et al. (2022) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12994 · Cited by 412
Self-citationThe FDA and designing clinical trials for chronic cutaneous ulcers
Maderal, A. D., Vivas, A. C., Eaglstein, W. H., & Kirsner, R. S. (2012) · Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.09.014 · Cited by 41
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Evaluation and Management
Maderal, A. D., Vivas, A. C., Zwick, T. G., & Kirsner, R. S. (2012) · Hospital Practice · doi:10.3810/hp.2012.08.994 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Cardinal, M., Eisenbud, D. E., Armstrong, D. G., Zelen, C., Driver, V., Attinger, C., Phillips, T., & Harding, K.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 306-311
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W1989149969
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Serial surgical debridement: A retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00485.x
- The paper
- Cardinal, M., Eisenbud, D. E., Armstrong, D. G., Zelen, C., Driver, V., Attinger, C., Phillips, T., & Harding, K. (2009). Serial surgical debridement: A retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00485.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.