The Journal of Practical Medicine >

2026 , Vol. 42 >Issue 5: 824 - 830

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.05.013

Chronic Disease Control

Efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy combined with ultrasound debridement for diabetic foot ulcers in the outpatient setting

  • Jianing XIANG ,
  • Hua ZHONG ,
  • Jiayi REN ,
  • Keru LIU ,
  • Wenrui LI ,
  • Zhibin CAO
Expand
  • 1.School of Clinical Medicine，Shandong Second Medical University，Weifang 261041，Shandong，China
    2.Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism，the Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Second Medical University，Weifang 261031，Shandong，China

Received date: 2025-11-03

  Online published: 2026-03-09

Fold

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of combining single-use negative pressure wound therapy （sNPWT） with ultrasound debridement （UD） for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers （DFU） in an outpatient setting. Methods Sixty diabetic foot patients admitted to the Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases Department of Shandong Second Medical University Affiliated Hospital between June 1， 2024， and June 30， 2025， were enrolled. Based on the actual treatment recorded in their medical records， they were divided into three groups （n = 20）： conventional therapy group （control group 1）， sNPWT group （control group 2）， and combined UD + sNPWT group （experimental group）. All patients received standard hypoglycemic and anti-infective therapy. Control group 1 received traditional surgical debridement with routine dressing changes. Control group 2 received traditional surgical debridement plus sNPWT. The experimental group received UD combined with sNPWT. The primary efficacy endpoints （wound area reduction rate， change in sinus tract depth， ulcer healing rate） and secondary endpoints （pain score， quality of life， C-reactive protein levels） were assessed among the three groups at 1， 2， and 4 weeks after treatment initiation. Results Primary efficacy endpoints： After 4 weeks， the wound reduction rate in the experimental group （69.16 ± 2.33） % was significantly higher than that in control group 1 （53.33 ± 2.27） % and control group 2 （58.47 ± 2.15） % （P < 0.05）. The sinus tract depth in the experimental group decreased to （0.47 ± 0.19） cm， significantly shallower than that in control group 1 ［（0.88 ± 0.40） cm］ and control group 2 ［（0.69 ± 0.32） cm］ （P < 0.05）. The overall clinical efficacy rate was 95.0% in both the experimental group and control group 2， significantly higher than the 65.0% in control group 1 （P < 0.05）. Secondary endpoints： The experimental group exhibited the lowest VAS pain score （2.05 points） and Wound-QoL score （26.65 points） among all groups （both P < 0.05）. Quality of life improvements were significantly greater than in control group 2 from week 2 onward （P < 0.05）. The C-reactive protein level in the experimental group ［（2.45 ± 0.36） mg/L］ at 4 weeks was significantly lower than that in control group 1 ［（2.86 ± 0.51） mg/L］ （P < 0.05）. Conclusion The combination of sNPWT and UD， applied for the first time in an outpatient setting for diabetic foot treatment， promotes wound healing， reduces pain， improves quality of life， and suppresses inflammatory factors in patients with DFU.

Key words： diabetic foot ulcer; negative pressure wound therapy; ultrasonic debridement

Cite this article

Jianing XIANG , Hua ZHONG , Jiayi REN , Keru LIU , Wenrui LI , Zhibin CAO . Efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy combined with ultrasound debridement for diabetic foot ulcers in the outpatient setting[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2026 , 42(5) : 824 -830 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.05.013

References

[1] ARMSTRONG D G， TAN T W， BOULTON A J M， et al. Diabetic Foot Ulcers： A Review［J］. JAMA， 2023， 330（1）： 62-75. doi：10.1001/jama.2023.10578 .
[2] REHMAN Z U， KHAN J， NOORDIN S. Diabetic Foot Ulcers： Contemporary Assessment And Management［J］. J Pakistan Med Assoc， 2023， 73（7）： 1480-1487. doi：10.47391/JPMA.6634 .
[3] LIU E， HU X， ZHANG W， et al. Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-assisted wound debridement in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers： A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials［J］. Front Endocrinol， 2024， 15： 1393251. doi：10.3389/fendo.2024.1393251 .
[4] CHEN L， ZHANG S， DA J， et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer［J］. Annal Palliat Med， 2021， 10（10）： 108300839-108310839. doi：10.21037/apm-21-2476 .
[5] DALMEDICO M M， ROCIO FEDALTO A DO， MARTINS W A， et al. Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in treating diabetic foot ulcers： A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials［J］. Wounds， 2024， 36（8）： 281-289. doi：10.25270/wnds/23140 .
[6] KIRSNER R S， ZIMNITSKY D， ROBINSON M. A prospective， randomized， controlled clinical study on the effectiveness of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system， compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic ulcers of the lower extremities［J］. Wound Repair Regen， 2021， 29（6）： 908-911. doi：10.1111/wrr.12966 .
[7] SCHAPER N C， VAN NETTEN J J， APELQVIST J， et al. Practical guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes-related foot disease （IWGDF 2023 update）［J］. Diabetes Metab Res Rev， 2024， 40（3）： e3657. doi：10.1002/dmrr.3657 .
[8] WAGNER F W. The dysvascular foot： A system for diagnosis and treatment［J］. Foot Ankle， 1981， 2（2）： 64-122. doi：10.1177/107110078100200202 .
[9] 吴倩. 慢性伤口患者生活质量量表（Wound-QoL）汉化及信效度检验［D］. 南宁：广西中医药大学， 2022.
[10] SENNEVILLE é， ALBALAWI Z， VAN ASTEN S A， et al. IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections （IWGDF/IDSA 2023）［J］. Diabetes Metab Res Rev， 2024， 40（3）： e3687. doi：10.1002/dmrr.3687 .
[11] DAYYA D， O’NEILL O J， HUEDO-MEDINA T B， et al. Debridement of Diabetic Foot Ulcers［J］. Adv Wound Care， 2022， 11（12）： 666-686. doi：10.1089/wound.2021.0016 .
[12] KATAOKA Y， KUNIMITSU M， NAKAGAMI G， et al. Effectiveness of ultrasonic debridement on reduction of bacteria and biofilm in patients with chronic wounds： A scoping review［J］. Int Wound J， 2021， 18（2）： 176-186. doi：10.1111/iwj.13509 .
[13] ZAVER V， KANKANALU P. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy［M］.StatPearls. Treasure Island （FL）： StatPearls Publishing， 2025.
[14] WANG T， FAN L， LIU J， et al. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Promotes Wound Healing by Inhibiting Inflammation in Diabetic Foot Wounds： A Role for NOD1 Receptor［J］. Int J Lower Extrem Wound， 2025， 24（4）： 994-1002. doi：10.1177/15347346221131844 .
[15] FLORES-ESCOBAR S， áLVARO-AFONSO F J， GARCíA-áLVAREZ Y， et al. Ultrasound-Assisted Wound （UAW） Debridement in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer： A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis［J］. J Clin Med， 2022， 11（7）： 1911. doi：10.3390/jcm11071911 .
[16] YANG R， CHEN G， PAN Q Y， et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of ultrasound-assisted wound debridement in managing diabetic foot ulcers： A systematic review and meta-analysis［J］. World J Diabete， 2025， 16（2）： 97077. doi：10.4239/wjd.v16.i2.97077 .
[17] ANGULO A R， CABALLERO-ALVARADO J， SARMIENTO-FALEN J， et al. Comparative Assessment of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment in Diabetic Foot Ulcers： A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis［J］. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs， 2025， 52（3）： 227-238. doi：10.1097/WON.0000000000001164 .
[18] OUYANG H， YANG J， WAN H， et al. Effects of different treatment measures on the efficacy of diabetic foot ulcers： A network meta-analysis［J］. Front Endocrinol， 2024， 15： 1452192. doi：10.3389/fendo.2024.1452192 .
[19] 陈存仁， 方团育， 莫泽纬， 等. 封闭负压引流联合微动力负压敷料促进糖尿病足创面愈合的效果［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2021， 37（9）： 1164-1167. doi： 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725. 2021. 09.014 .
[20] 张晓磊. 超声清创刀联合简易负压治疗糖尿病足溃疡的临床效果观察［C］.梅州：关爱生命大讲堂之生命关怀与智慧康养系列学术研讨会论文集（上）--临床心理关怀与医院人文建设的融合专题. 线上会议， 2025： 3， 124-126.
[21] 李旭文， 宋培军， 熊竹友， 等. 超声清创水刀联合封闭负压引流技术在糖尿病足溃疡中的应用［J］. 蚌埠医学院学报， 2022， 47（8）： 1007-1010. doi：10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200. 2022.08.005 .
[22] 罗富强， 余电柏， 谢康麒， 等. 糖尿病足溃疡创面修复相关机制的研究进展［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2023， 39（2）： 158-163.doi： 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2023.02.006 .
[23] HUANG Y， YU Z， XU M， et al. Negative pressure wound therapy promotes wound healing by down-regulating miR-155 expression in granulation tissue of diabetic foot ulcers［J］. Sci Rep， 2025， 15： 6733. doi：10.1038/s41598-025-90643-7 .
[24] DAWI J， TUMANYAN K， TOMAS K， et al. Diabetic Foot Ulcers： Pathophysiology， Immune Dysregulation， and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies［J］. Biomed， 2025， 13（5）： 1076. doi：10.3390/biomedicines13051076 .
[25] WANG P， LI Z P， RUAN Y H， et al. Optimization and advances in negative pressure wound therapy for the management of necrotizing fasciitis in the upper limb［J］. World J Orthop， 2025， 16（3）： 105130. doi：10.5312/wjo.v16.i3.105130 .
[26] ALKHALEFAH S， ALTURAIKI I， ALTWAIJRY N. Advancing Diabetic Foot Ulcer Care： AI and Generative AI Approaches for Classification， Prediction， Segmentation， and Detection［J］. Healthcare， 2025， 13（6）： 648. doi：10.3390/healthcare13060648 .
[27] Chinese Burn Association， The Yangtze River Delta Integrated Diabetic Foot Alliance， And The Editorial Committee Of The Chinese Journal Of Burns And Wound Repair， LUO G， LIU Y， et al. Practical guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease in China［J］. Burns Trauma， 2025， 13： tkaf064. doi：10.1093/burnst/tkaf064 .
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉