Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40507680›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Minimally Invasive Drainage for Diabetic Foot Phlegmon.

Marco Cavallini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Marco CavalliniDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, AOU Sant'Andrea, Sapienza, University of Rome, 00189 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8118-9340

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment for deep diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and infections (DFIs) includes debridement of any dead/infected non-viable tissue, systemic antibiotics, and surgical drainage to avoid exudate stasis. Surgical drainage can cause extended incisions leading to long scars which expose these sites to ulcer recurrence and inadequate rehabilitation. In order to treat the negative impact of stasis on wound healing, we have designed an easy, minimally invasive surgical drainage technique which allows adequate ulcer cleansing by daily irrigation of any drained tract. A probe is passed along the ulcer's infected recesses until the end and pushed against the skin, which is incised and pierced. A small 6 Fr-size silastic tube is then anchored to the probe and pulled backwards. The two ends of the tube are tied together to construct an ulcer-piercing drainage (UPD) ring. The UPD ring is designed to keep any tract open for irrigation with a syringe through both sides of the skin opening. The UPD procedure is easy and safe. The constructed blocked ring of tubing the system avoids the possibility for drainage displacement or accidental removal and can be easily utilized by any home caregiver. The UPD and irrigation are useful to provide any recess cleansing, reduce critical and negative ulcer bioburden and bacterial load, and it could avoid unnecessary and untimely extended surgical incisions leading to long uncomfortable scars, inadequate rehabilitation, relapses, or distal amputations.

Indexed as

diabetic foot ulcerneuro-ischemic footsurgical drainage

Identifiers

PMID40507680
PMCPMC12156023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.