Diabetic Foot Wounds Treated With Human Amniotic Membrane and Low-level Laser Therapy: A Pilot Clinical Study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and human amniotic membrane (HAM) application have been shown to be viable options for use in wound healing. PURPOSE: This study sought to compare LLLT and HAM to a control treatment (hydrogel, saline, and gauze) in persons with diabetes mellitus (DM) and foot ulcers. METHODS: Using a prospective pilot clinical study design, patients receiving care at a health center that specializes in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds between November 2016 and August 2017 were recruited. Eligible patients had to be 30 to 59 years of age; diagnosed with type 2 DM (postprandial capillary glucose levels between 140 and 350 mg/dL); and have uninfected, granulating stage 2 or 3 foot ulcers measuring less than 7 cm by 3 cm. Immunosuppressed and malnourished patients or those with neoplasms or in critical condition were not eligible to participate. Patients received the control treatment (2 mg hydrogel, saline, and gauze), HAM (patches of thawed HAM, applied with overlapping edges), or LLLT (phototherapy session, 2 mg hydrogel, saline, and gauze) for 28 days. Variables, wound area measurements, Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were used to assess wound improvement progress and pain on days 7, 14, 21, and 28. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the participant anthropometric and clinical profiles. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze the sample distribution. The Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's post-test was used to evaluate differences in PUSH and VAS scores and wound size for intergroup analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for the same outcomes in intragroup analysis. The level of significance was 5% (P < .05). RESULTS: Twenty-seven (27) patients participated (mean age, 51.4 years; mean body mass index, 26.5 kg/m2), with 9 patients in each treatment group. No statistically significant differences were noted in clinical or anthropometric variables among the groups, but mean baseline wound areas were different (2.6 cm² for the control, 1.9 cm² for the LLLT, and 5.5 cm² for the HAM groups). Intragroup comparisons showed a significant reduction in PUSH score in the LLT group between days 0 and 21 (8.2 vs 4.9; P < .01) and days 21 to 28 (4.9 vs 3.2; P < .001). In all treatment groups the percent reduction was significantly different between days 7 and 28. No outcomes were significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Diabetic foot ulcer wound area as well as PUSH and VAS scores showed more improvement for patients with DM receiving LLLT or HAM than for the control group, but the differences were not significant. Larger studies are needed to compare these treatment modalities.