胫骨横向骨搬移治疗重度感染糖尿病足
作者:
作者简介:

苏永锋,硕士在读,研究方向:骨关节外科,(电话)18587686981,(电子信箱)1470626596@qq.com

中图分类号:

R681.8

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目(编号:82060406,81601930,82260448);中国博士后科学基金项目(编号:2019M650235);广西壮族自治区自然科学基金项目(编号:2017GXNSFAA198318);广西壮族自治区南宁市青秀区重点研发计划项目(编号:2021003,2020053);广西医科大学第一附属医院临床研究攀登计划项目(编号:YYZS2020010)


Tibia transverse transport for severely infected diabetic foot
Author:
  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [26]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的] 探讨胫骨横向骨搬移 (tibial transverse transport, TTT) 治疗合并脓毒症/脓毒症休克的重度糖尿病足的疗效。 [方法]回顾性分析 2015 年 4 月—2020 年 8 月本院治疗的合并脓毒症/脓毒症休克的重度糖尿病足 77 例患者的临床资料。首先所有患者均接受矫正休克,改善全身情况,应用敏感抗生素和局部清创等治疗;然后根据医患沟通结果,45 例行 TTT 治疗, 32 例行传统治疗。比较两组临床及辅助检查结果。[结果]TTT 组的住院时间 [(21.8±7.6) d vs (28.6±12.0) d, P=0.007]、清创次数 [(2.1±0.5) 次 vs (3.5±1.0) 次, P<0.001]、换药次数 [(19.7±7.5) 次 vs (25.1±11.1) 次, P=0.013]、出院时创面面积 [(68.2±27.4) cm2 vs (105.2±20.5) cm2 , P=0.003]、住院期间截肢率 [8(17.8%) vs 15(46.9%), P=0.006] 和死亡率 [1(2.2%) vs 7(21.9%), P=0.005] 均显著低于传统组。随访时间 1~72 个月,平均 (20.4±15.8) 个月。末次随访时足保留者死亡例数 TTT 组为 8 (22.2%) 例,传统组为 6 (60.0%)例,差异有统计学意义(P=0.022)。保肢成功例数 TTT 组为 26(72.2%)例,传统组为 0(0%)例,差异有统计学意义 (P<0.001)。 截止末次随访时存活者 TTT 组的 PCS 评分 [(43.5±3.4) vs (40.6±2.1), P=0.043] 和 MCS 评分 [(46.4±3.6) vs (36.5±2.4), P< 0.001] 均显著优于传统组。随着时间的推移,两组的 PCS 评分和 MCS 评分均显著优于治疗前(P<0.05)。辅助检查方面,随着时间推移,两组的 WBC、PCT、CRP、ESR、IL-6 均显著降低(P<0.05)。出院时,TTT 组保肢者的 WBC、PCT、CRP、ESR、IL-6 均显著低于传统组(P<0.05)。TTT 组出院时的 CTA 血管显像显著优于传统组(P<0.05),末次随访时 TTT 组的 CTA 血管显像显著优于出院时(P<0.05)。[结论]与传统治疗方法相比,TTT 治疗合并脓毒症或脓毒症休克的重度糖尿病足可明显提高创面愈合率,降低截肢率和死亡率,缓解疼痛,改善患肢功能,提高生活质量。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] To explore the clinical outcomes of tibia transverse transport (TTT) for diabetic foot accompanied with sepsis or septic shock. [Methods] A retrospective study was conducted on 77 patients who received treatments for severe diabetic foot complicated with sepsis or septic shock in our hospital from April 2015 to August 2020. First of all, all the patients received treatments of anti-shock, im- provement of general condition with sensitive antibiotics, and local debridement. Subsequently, 45 patients were treated with TTT, while the remaining 32 patients were with traditional treatment according to the doctor-patient communication. The documents regarding clinical con- dition and auxiliary examination were compared between the two groups. [Results] The TTT group proved significantly superior to the tradi- tional group in terms of hospital stay [(21.8±7.6) days vs (28.6±12.0) days, P=0.007], debridement times [(2.1±0.5) times vs (3.5±1.0) times, P<0.001], dressing change times [(19.7±7.5) times vs (25.1±11.1) times, P=0.013], wound area at discharge [(68.2±27.4) cm2 vs (105.2±20.5) cm2 , P=0.003], amputation rate during hospitalization [8(17.8%) vs 15(46.9%), P=0.006] and mortality in hospital [1(2.2%) vs 7 (21.9%), P= 0.005]. The follow-up period was 1~72 months with an average of (20.4±15.8) months. At the final follow-up, 8 (22.2%) patients in the TTT group and 6 (60%) patients in the traditional group died; the difference was statistically significant (P=0.022). And 26 (72.2%) patients in the TTT group while no patients (0%) in the traditional group were salvageable; the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). At the final follow-up, PCS score [(43.5±3.4) vs (40.6±2.1), P=0.043] and MCS score [(46.4±3.6) vs (36.5±2.4), P<0.001] in the TTT group were sig- nificantly higher than those in the traditional group. As time went by, PCS score and MCS score in both groups were significantly higher than before treatment (P<0.05). As for auxiliary examination, WBC, PCT, CRP, ESR, and IL-6 in both groups were significantly decreased over time (P<0.05). At discharge, WBC, PCT, CRP, ESR, and IL-6 of limb salvage patients in TTT group were significantly lower than those in traditional group (P<0.05). The CTA angiography in the TTT group at discharge was significantly better than that in the traditional group (P< 0.05), and the CTA angiography in the TTT group at the last follow-up was significantly better than that at discharge (P<0.05). [Conclusion] Compared with traditional therapy, TTT treatment for severe diabetic foot complicated with sepsis or septic shock can significantly improve the wound healing rate, reduce the amputation rate and mortality, relieve pain, improve the function of affected limb, and improve the quality of life.

    参考文献
    [1] Chang M,Nguyen TT.Strategy for treatment of infected diabetic foot ulcers [J].Acc Chem Res,2021,54(5):1080-1093.
    [2] Mishra SC,Chhatbar KC,Kashikar A,et al.Diabetic foot [J].BMJ,2017,359:j5064.
    [3] D?rr S,Freier F,Schlecht M,et al.Bacterial diversity and inflam? matory response at first-time visit in younger and older individuals with diabetic foot infection(DFI)[J].Acta Diabetol,2021,58(2):181-189.
    [4] Hung SY,Chiu CH,Huang CH,et al.Impact of wound microbiolo? gy on limb preservation in patients with diabetic foot infection [J].J Diabet Invest,2022,13(2):336-343.
    [5] Aragon-sanchez J,Viquez-molina G,Lopez-valverde ME,et al.Clinical,microbiological and inflammatory markers of severe dia? betic foot infections [J].Diabet Med,2021,38(10):e14648.
    [6] Monteiro-soares M,Russell D,Boyko E,et al.Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers(IWGDF 2019)[J].Diabetes Metab Res Rev,2020:e3273.
    [7] Wukich D,Hobizal K,Raspovic K,et al.SIRS is valid in discrimi? nating between severe and moderate diabetic foot infections [J].Di? abetes Care,2013,36(11):3706-3711.
    [8] Balk R.Systemic inflammatory response syndrome(SIRS):Where did it come from and is it still relevant today [J].Virulence,2014,5(1):20-26.
    [9] Lipsky B,Senneville é,Abbas Z,et al.Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes(IWGDF 2019 update)[J].Diabetes Metab Res Rev,2020,36(Suppl 1):e3280.
    [10] Simpson S.SIRS in the time of sepsis-3 [J].Chest,2018,153(1):34-38.
    [11] Evans L,Rhodes A,Alhazzani W,et al.Surviving sepsis cam? paign:international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 [J].Int Care Med,2021,47(11):1181-1247.
    [12] Singer M,Deutschman C,Seymour C,et al.The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock(Sepsis-3)[J].JAMA,2016,315(8):801-810.
    [13] Hotchkiss RS,Moldawer LL,Opal SM,et al.Sepsis and septic shock [J].Nat Rev Dis Primers,2016,2:16045.
    [14] Manjappachar NK,Cuenca JA,Ramirez CM,et al.Outcomes and predictors of 28-day mortality in patients with hematologic malig? nancies and septic shock defined by sepsis-3 criteria [J].J Natl Compr Canc Netw,2022,20(1):45-53.
    [15] Ramirez-Acuna JM,Cardenas-Cadena SA,Marquez-Salas PA,et al.Diabetic foot ulcers:current advances in antimicrobial thera? pies and emerging treatments [J].Antibiotics(Basel),2019,8(4):193.
    [16] Schirmer S,Ritter RG,Fansa H.Vascular surgery,microsurgery and supramicrosurgery for treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers to prevent amputations [J].PLoS One,2013,8(9):e74704.
    [17] 许樟荣.学习国际糖尿病足工作组2019版糖尿病足临床指南,规范糖尿病足的诊治 [J].中华糖尿病杂志,2021,13(8):753-757.
    [18] 秦泗河,曲龙.骨外固定技术的发展史与骨科自然重建理念的形成 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2009,17(16):1262-1265.
    [19] 花奇凯,秦泗河,赵良军,等.Ilizarov 技术胫骨横向骨搬移术治疗糖尿病足 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2017,25(4):303-307.
    [20] Chen Y,Ding X,Zhu Y,et al.Effect of tibial cortex transverse transport in patients with recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers:a pro? spective multicenter cohort study [J].J Orthop Transl,2022,36:194-204.
    [21] Chen Y,Kuang X,Zhou J,et al.Proximal tibial cortex transverse distraction facilitating healing and limb salvage in severe and recal? citrant diabetic foot ulcers [J].Clin Orthop Relat Res,2020,478(4):836-851.
    [22] 镇普祥,陈炎,高伟,等.应用Ilizarov技术胫骨横向骨搬移术治疗合并全身性炎症反应综合征的重度糖尿病足 [J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2018,32(10):1261-1266.
    [23] 李山郎,花奇凯,刘光炜,等.胫骨横向骨搬移治疗下肢难愈性创面的研究进展 [J].中华骨科杂志,2021,41(11):705-713.
    [24] 高伟,林震迅,镇普祥,等.胫骨横向骨搬移后巨噬细胞促进重度糖尿病足创面的愈合 [J].中国组织工程研究,2018,22(36):5811-5815.
    [25] 刘杰,花奇凯,李山郎,等.胫骨横向搬移治疗合并慢性肾病的糖尿病足 [J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(12):1063-1069.
    [26] Pierrakos C,Velissaris D,Bisdorff M,et al.Biomarkers of sepsis:time for a reappraisal [J].Crit Care,2020,24(1):287.
    引证文献
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
引用本文

苏永锋,丁毅,赵永鑫,等. 胫骨横向骨搬移治疗重度感染糖尿病足[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2023, 31 (19): 1735-1741. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.19.02.
SU Yong-feng, DING Yi, ZHAO Yong-xin, et al. Tibia transverse transport for severely infected diabetic foot[J]. Orthopedic Journal of China , 2023, 31 (19): 1735-1741. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.19.02.

复制
文章指标
  • 点击次数:143
  • 下载次数: 171
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:January 18,2023
  • 最后修改日期:May 10,2023
  • 在线发布日期: October 26,2023