Infected chronic ischemic wound topically treated with a multi-strain probiotic formulation: a novel tailored treatment strategy.

BACKGROUND: A wide debate is ongoing regarding the role of cutaneous dysbiosis in the pathogenesis and evolution of difficult-to-treat chronic wounds. Nowadays, probiotic treatment considered as an useful tool to counteract dysbiosis but the evidence in regard to their therapeutic use in the setting of difficult-to-treat cutaneous ulcers is still poor. AIM: CLINICAL REPORT: An 83-year-old woman suffering a critical limb ischemia and an infected difficult-to-treat ulcerated cutaneous lesion of the right leg, was complementary treated with local application of a mixture of probiotic bacteria. METHODS: Microbiological and metabolomic analysis were conducted on wound swabs obtained before and after bacteriotherapy. RESULTS: During the treatment course, a progressive healing of the lesion was observed with microbiological resolution of the polymicrobial infection of the wound. Metabolomic analysis showed a significant difference in the local concentration of propionate, 2-hydroxyisovalerate, 2-oxoisocaproate, 2,3-butanediol, putrescine, thymine, and trimethylamine before and after bacteriotherapy. CONCLUSION: The microbiological and metabolomic results seem to confirm the usefulness of complementary probiotic treatment in difficult-to-treat infected wounds. Further investigations are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Comparison of Removable and Irremovable Walking Boot to Total Contact Casting in Offloading the Neuropathic Diabetic Foot Ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Despite its efficacy in healing neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), total contact cast (TCC) is often underused because of technical limitations and poor patient acceptance. We compared TCC to irremovable and removable commercially available walking boots for DFU offloading. METHODS: We prospectively studied 60 patients with DFUs, randomly assigned to 3 different offloading modalities: TCC (group A), walking boot rendered irremovable (i-RWD; group B), and removable walking boot (RWD; group C). Patients were followed up weekly for 90 days or up to complete re-epithelization; ulcer survival, healing time, and ulcer size reduction (USR) were considered for efficacy, whereas number of adverse events was considered for safety. Patients' acceptance and costs were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean healing time in the 3 groups did not differ (P = .5579), and survival analysis showed no difference between the groups (logrank test P = .8270). USR from baseline to the end of follow-up was significant (P < .01) in all groups without differences between the groups. Seven patients in group A (35%), 2 in group B (10%), and 1 in group C (5%) (Fisher exact test P = .0436 group A vs group C) reported nonsevere adverse events. Patients' acceptance and costs were significantly better in group C (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a walking boot was as effective and safe as TCC in offloading the neuropathic DFUs, irrespective of removability. The better acceptability and lesser costs of a removable device may actually extend the possibilities of providing adequate offloading. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.