medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-6517 (Print)

2012, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Latinoam Cir 2012; 2 (1)

Saint Elian wound scoring system for the follow-up of diabetic foot ulcers and its therapeutic relevance

Martínez-De Jesús FR, González-Medina MF, Martínez-Mendiola FN, Jiménez GR, Gutiérrez-Aguilar P

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 14-20
PDF size: 105.34 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Many scoring systems are being introduced for decision making, prognosis, and potential healing, severity and research purposes. Most of them are used only at initial evaluation excluding other important variables. Severity grades for prognostic purposes scored at patient presentation have already been reported. Follow-up of wound healing progress and therapeutic impact is the purpose of this work.
Material and methods: From January 2006 to January 2009, 235 patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic foot wounds were included and evaluated with the Saint Elian wound score system (SEWSS) which categorize 10 wound variables evaluated from mild to moderate and severe and the final score graded severity from I, II and III.
Results: Treatment success was shown as a descending stair (initial/final) proportion/wound healing of patients from grade I (n = 114/110; 48.5/96.5%), II (n = 90/51; 38.3/56.7%) and III (n = 31/3; 13/9.7%) (p ‹ 0.001). Success healing progress of the three severity grades showed a lineal tendency until 4th assessment and then after just the difficult to heal ulcers remained increasing wound score.
Conclusion: Wound healing score follow-up measured the therapeutic interventions and showed the persistence of ulcers difficult to heal after the fourth assessment. The SEWSS provide a useful tool for therapeutic interventions and ulcer follow-up for success or failure of wound healing.


REFERENCES

  1. Lipsky BA. Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39(Suppl 2):S104-S114.

  2. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, van Houtum WH, Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Schaper NC. International consensus and practical guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000;16(Suppl 1):S84-S92.

  3. Martínez-De Jesús FR. A checklist system to score healing progress of diabetic foot ulcers. Int J of Lower Extremity Wounds 2010;9:74-83.

  4. Saltzman CL, Rashid R, Hayes A, Fellner C, Fitzpatrick D, Klapach A et al. 4.5-gram monofilament sensation beneath both first metatarsal heads indicates protective foot sensation in diabetic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:717-723.

  5. Schaper NC, Huijberts M, Pickwell K. Neurovascular control and neurogenic inflammation in diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008;24(Suppl 1):S40-S44.

  6. Malgrange D. Physiopathology of the diabetic foot. Rev Med Interne 2008;29(Suppl 2):S231-S237.

  7. Yavuz M, Tajaddini A, Botek G, Davis BL. Temporal characteristics of plantar shear distribution: relevance to diabetic patients. J Biomech 2008;41:556-559.

  8. Lott DJ, Zou D, Mueller MJ. Pressure gradient and subsurface shear stress on the neuropathic forefoot. Clin Biomech 2008;23:342-348.

  9. Birke JA, Patout CA Jr, Foto JG. Factors associated with ulceration and amputation in the neuropathic foot. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2000;30:91-97.

  10. Gottrup F. A specialized wound-healing center concept: importance of a multidisciplinary department structure and surgical treatment facilities in the treatment of chronic wounds. Am J Surg 2004;187:S38-S43.

  11. Edmonds ME, Foster A. The diabetic foot: importance of a center for specialized care. Journ Annu Diabetol Hotel Dieu 1988;291:301.

  12. Van Houtum WH, Rauwerda JA, Ruwaard D, Schaper NC, Bakker K. Reduction in diabetes-related lower-extremity amputations in the Netherlands: 1991-2000. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1042-1046.

  13. Ince P, Abbas ZG, Lutale JK, Basit A, Ali SM, Chohan F et al. Use of the SINBAD classification system and score in comparing outcome of foot ulcer management on three continents. Diabetes Care 2008;31:964-967.

  14. Younes NA, Albsoul AM. The DEPA scoring system and its correlation with the healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers. J Foot Ankle Surg 2004;43:209-213.

  15. Beckert S, Witte M, Wicke C, Konigsrainer A, Coerper S. A new wound-based severity score for diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective analysis of 1,000 patients. Diabetes Care 2006;29: 988-992.

  16. Strauss MB, Aksenov IV. Evaluation of diabetic wound classifications and a new wound score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;439:79-86.

  17. Leese G, Schofield C, McMurray B, Libby G, Golden J, MacAlpine R et al. Scottish foot ulcer risk score predicts foot ulcer healing in a regional specialist foot clinic. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2064-2069.

  18. Edmonds M. Can a wound-based severity score for diabetic foot ulcers predict clinical outcome? Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 2007;3:208-209.

  19. Martínez-De Jesus FR, Ramos-de la Medina A, Remes-Troche JM, Armstrong D, Stephanie W, Lázaro-Martínez JL et al. Efficacy and safety of neutral pH superoxidized solution in severe diabetic foot infections. Int Wound J 2007; 4: 353-362.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com