Clinical and hemodynamic predictors of regenerative success in patients with purulent-inflammatory soft tissue infections and type 2 diabetes: a prognostic model

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2025.4(89).1014

Keywords:

purulent-inflammatory soft tissue diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, muramyl peptides, prostaglandin E1, wound healing, regenerative plateau

Abstract

Surgical management of purulent-inflammatory soft tissue diseases (PISTD) in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains a critical challenge for modern healthcare. The fundamental problem is the formation of a "regenerative plateau" - a state of metabolic stagnation where the healing process stalls in a prolonged inflammatory phase.

Aim - to enhance the surgical treatment efficacy in patients with PISTD and T2DM by implementing a synergistic therapeutic protocol based on muramyl peptide-derived immunomodulators and prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) analogues.

Materials and methods. A prospective clinical study included 148 patients with PISTD and T2DM, randomized into a Control group (CG, n=72) and a Main group (MG, n=76) receiving systemic muramyl peptide immunocorrection and PGE1 therapy. Microcirculation was evaluated using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), and wound dynamics were assessed via computer planimetry. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 12.0 software (p≤0.05).

Results. It was established that in the MG, clinical resolution of local edema and pain syndrome occurred 1.57 times faster than in the CG (p≤0.05), and body temperature normalization was 1.69 times faster. The use of PGE1 helped eliminate capillary sludge syndrome, ensuring a 59.3% reduction in wound area by day 10 and a decrease in the length of hospital stay (9.4±1.3 days in the MG vs 16.1±2.2 days in the CG). The obtained data indicate that the synergistic strategy can effectively overcome metabolic stagnation.

Conclusions. The integrated use of muramyl peptides and PGE1 significantly improves PISTD treatment outcomes by synchronizing regional blood flow with a targeted immune response.

The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. (2023). Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. New England Journal of Medicine. 388(20): 1858-1867.

Bohachuk MH. (2019). Muramyl peptide immunomodulation in soft tissue infections. Clinical Anatomy and Operative Surgery. 18(3): 21-25. https://doi.org/10.24061/1727-0847.18.3.2019.4

Boulton AJM. (2023). The diabetic foot: Grand challenge for the 21st century. Diabetes Care. 46(2): 235-247. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci22-0051; PMid:36952612 PMCid:PMC10090899

Everett E, Mathioudakis N. (2021). Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1411(1): 153-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13569; PMid:29377202 PMCid:PMC5793889

Frykberg RG, Banks J. (2020). Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Surgical Technology International. 36: 120-128. PMID: 32131006.

Huang Y, Cao Y, Liang J, Wu M, Yu K et al. (2021). Microcirculatory dysfunction in diabetic foot ulcers: A review of mechanisms and methods of assessment. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 12: 730605. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.730605

IWGDF Guidelines. (2023). International guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews: e3657. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3657; PMid:37243927

Lazzarini PA, Pacella RE, Armstrong DG, Van Netten JJ, Bus SA et al. (2022). Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 10(5): 315-332. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00046-9.

Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS et al. (2020). Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 8(6): 467-478. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30110-5.

McDermott K, Fang M, Boulton AJM, Selvin E, Hicks CW. (2023). Etiology, Epidemiology, and Disparities in the Burden of Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Diabetes Care. 46(1): 209-221. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci22-0043; PMid:36548709 PMCid:PMC9797649

Schaper NC, Van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, Lipsky BA, Bakker K et al. (2024). Prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 20: 112-125. doi: 10.1038/s41574-023-00911-x.

Sen CK. (2021). Human wound and its burden: Updated 2020 estimates. Advances in Wound Care. 10(5): 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2021.0026; PMid:33733885 PMCid:PMC8024242

Uccioli L, Izzo V, Meloni M, Vainieri E, Ruotolo V et al. (2022). Non-healing foot ulcers in diabetic patients: General and local interfering conditions. Diabetes Care. 45(1): 124-135. doi: 10.2337/dc21-0810.

Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, Tang S, Zhu D et al. (2017). Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration. Annals of Medicine. 49(2): 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2016.1231932; PMid:27585063

Zheliba MD, Bohachuk MH. (2018). Morphofunctional state of leukocytes in PISTD and T2DM. Art of Medicine. (4): 74-78. doi: 10.21802/artm.2018.4.8.74.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-28

Issue

Section

Original articles. General surgery