Maggot therapy for chronic ulcer: a retrospective cohort and a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Maggot wound therapy (MWT) has been used in various wounds including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure ulcers, and acute surgical wounds. However, the efficacy of MWT therapy has been controversial. We therefore conducted a cohort study and a meta-analysis to assess MWT effects. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patients who were treated with MWT or conventional wound therapy (CWT) in Thailand. The Kaplan-Meier curve was applied to estimate the healing probability. A meta-analysis was performed to pool our study with four previous cohort studies identified from Medline and Scopus. RESULTS: The estimated incidence of wound healing was 5.7/100 (95% CI: 4.49, 7.32) patients-week, and the median time to healing was 14 weeks. The hazard ratio (HR) of wound healing was 7.87 times significantly higher in the MWT than the CWT (p < 0.001) after adjusting for duration and size of ulcers, ankle brachial index (ABI), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Meta-analysis was applied and suggested that the treatment effects were moderately heterogeneous {Chi-square = 6.18 [degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 4]; p = 0.186; I(2) = 35.2%}, with the pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.77 [95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.01, 3.11], i.e., the chance of wound healing was 20% significantly higher with MWT than CWT. The average costs of treatment in patients with DFU were lower in the MWT group than in the CWT group, with medians of US$292.82 and US$490, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our evidence suggests that MWT is significantly better for wound healing and more cost-effective than CWT. An updated meta-analysis or large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required to confirm this effect.

A novel robotic monofilament test for diabetic neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of the Semmes-Weinstein (SW) monofilament test is recommended as a screening method for diabetic neuropathy. It offers an important chance to prevent further complications of diabetic foot. We aimed to develop a prototype Robotic Monofilament Inspector that can be used as a standard machine for screening of diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Development was divided into three parts: computer software, control box, and Robotic Monofilament Inspector. The examiner conducted the SW test (by hand and by robotic inspector), vibration perception threshold, and Toronto Clinical Scoring System without knowledge of patient information. The unpaired t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine the differences between independent groups in terms of continuous outcomes, while the χ(2) test was used to determine categorical outcomes. Agreement between the various diabetic neuropathy tests was measured using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: The SW test and vibration perception threshold were more valid tests for neuropathy than the Toronto test. The robotic test was in excellent agreement with the two former tests and appeared to be valid (kappa statistic, 0.35-0.81). Another indirect evidence for the validity of the robotic test was the finding that diabetic patients with foot ulcers had a higher prevalence of neuropathy (77%vs. 38%). This might indicate that the robotic test was more valid than the manual test. CONCLUSION: The Robotic Monofilament Inspector could be used as a simple screening machine. This prototype may be developed further for routine clinical use.