A deeper look at low‐frequency contact ultrasonic debridement in the clinical management of patients with diabetic foot ulcers

The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Álvaro Afonso, Francisco Javier, Flores Escobar, Jhony Sebastián, Sevillano Fernández, David, García Álvarez, Yolanda, García-Madrid Martín De Almagro, Marta, Lázaro Martínez, José Luis
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/103288
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/103288
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:616.718.7/.9
clinic environmental pollution
diabetic foot
diabetic foot ulcers
low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement
Podología
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
Descripción
Sumario:The current study aimed to evaluate the dispersal of solution and microbes (aerosol) in the clinical environment during treatment with Low-frequency contact ultrasonic debridement (LFCUD) with or without suction attachment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). We performed 20 treatments in 10 patients divided into two groups to receive the proposed LFCUD modalities. We measured the microbial load of the environment pre-treatment (sample M1), during treatment with each LFCUD modality (sample M2) and post-treatment (sample M3). The use of LFCUD debridement without a suction attachment results in significantly higher immediate contamination of the clinic environment than the suction attachment, particularly during the procedure (1.70 ± 0.98 log 10 CFU/mL versus 0.77 ± 0.85 log 10 CFU/mL, p = 0.035). When suction is not applied, there are statistically significant differences depending on whether the DFUs are neuropathic or neuroischemic, finding a greater number of microorganisms with high loads in neuropathic DFUs. We found a statistically significant positive correlation between wound area (r = 0.450, p = 0.047) and TBI (r = 0.651, p = 0.006) with the bacterial load during the LFCUD. Based on our results, we recommend using the personal protective equipment required to protect staff members and patients during treatment with LFCUD and using a suction attachment where clinically possible to reduce clinic environmental pollution, especially in neuropathic DFUs and those with larger areas.