DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20205449

Efficacy of lysine versus mupirocin in the treatment of non-diabetic foot ulcer: the sessing scale for assessment of pressure ulcer

Sridhar Prasad Y. P., Sandeep B., Shashi Kumara, Prathima C., Vani J.

Abstract


Background: This present studies intended to evaluate the wound healing ability, efficacy and tolerability of lysine cream (15%) in non- diabetic foot ulcer assessed by way of sessing scale.

Methods: A randomized, open-label, interventional study was directed on 20 subjects (participants) non-diabetic ulcers. Participants were grouped into two groups, control (n=10) and case (n=10). The control was treated with standard treatment with mupirocin and the test group was treated with standard treatment alongside lysine cream (15%) twice every day. Wound healing in the participants was assessed by the sessing scales.

Results: A total of 20 participants were allotted into two groups. The results expressed as mean±standard deviation values imply the size and depth of the foot ulcer from the first week to the 8th week. Both the groups showed a significant increase the ulcer healing and decrease the pressure of foot ulcer of over a period of 8 weeks. Assessment of the first week showed no significant ulcer healing and its pressure. The overall outcome indicated that the lysine-treated group extensively reduced each of the parameters favouring wound healing than the standard therapy with mupirocin (control group).

Conclusions: Results concluded that, lysine cream is better efficacious in the repair of wound and additionally well tolerated compared to mupirocin.


Keywords


Sessing scale, Non-diabetic foot ulcer, Lysine, Mupirocin

Full Text:

PDF

References


Henry G, Garner WL. Inflammatory mediators in wound healing. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83(3):483-507.

Thorne CH, Beasley RW, Aston SJ, Bartlett SP, Gurtner GC. Grabb & Smith’s Plastic surgery, 6th edition. Chapter 2: Wound healing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2006;322-44.

Australian Wound Management Association. Standards for wound management. Australian Wound Management Association. 2002. Available at: http://www.awma.com.au/ publications/2007/awma_standards.pdf. Accessed on: 25 April 2020.

Breasted JH. The Edwin Smith Surgical papyrus. Chicago: University Chicago press. Oriental Institute Publications (OIP). 1991;1:1930.

Cromack DT, Sporn MB, Roberts AB. Transforming growth factor beta levels in rat wound chambers. J Surg Res. 1987;42:622-8.

Steed DL. The role of growth factors in wound healing. Surg Clin N Am. 1997;77:575-86.

Vilcek J. The cytokine handbook. 3rd edition. San Diego. Academic press. 2003;1998.

Lorenz HP, Longaker MT. Mathes Plastic surgery-6. Trunk and Lower extremity. 2nd edition. Saunder’s Publication. 2003;219.

Gupta RN, Pandey A, Ghosh S. Diabetic foot: Pathogenesis, management and recent advances. Pharma Times. 2000;40:123-45.

Novak TE, Babcock TA, Jho DH, Helton WS, Espat NJ. NF-kappa B inhibition by omega-3 fatty acids modulates LPSstimulated macrophage TNF-alpha transcription. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2003;284:84-9.

Chow O, Barbul A. Immunonutrition: Role in wound healing and tissue regeneration. Critical reviews. Wound healing society. Adv Wound Care. 2012;3:49-53.

Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D, McCulloch DK, Sandhu N, Reiber GE, Wagner EH. Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):382-7.

Chow O, Barbul A. Immunonutrition: Role in wound healing and tissue regeneration. Critical reviews. Wound healing society. Adv Wound Care. 2012;3:49-53.