A Comparative Study Between the Use of Efficacy of Topical Sucralfate vs 5% Povidone Iodine in Chronic Lower Limb Non-Healing Ulcers
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of topical sucralfate versus 5% povidone-iodine in treating chronic lower limb non-healing ulcers, focusing on granulation tissue formation, ulcer size reduction, healing time, infection rates, and patient satisfaction.
Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted at Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, from January 2024 to December 2024. Sixty patients with chronic lower limb ulcers were divided into two groups: Group A (n=30) treated with 5% povidone-iodine dressings and Group B (n=30) treated with topical sucralfate dressings. Dressings were changed every alternate day, and patients were followed up for three weeks. Outcome measures included granulation tissue formation, ulcer surface area reduction, healing time, infection rates, and patient satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.
Results: The sucralfate group showed significantly better outcomes compared to the povidone-iodine group. Granulation tissue formation was "Good" or "Excellent" in 60% of sucralfate-treated patients versus 26.7% in the povidone-iodine group (p<0.001). The mean reduction in ulcer surface area was 7.8 cm² in the sucralfate group compared to 4.2 cm² in the povidone-iodine group (p<0.01). Healing time was significantly shorter in the sucralfate group (28.7 days vs. 42.5 days, p<0.001). Infection rates were lower in the sucralfate group (10% vs. 26.7%, p<0.05), and patient satisfaction was higher (80% vs. 50%, p<0.05).
Conclusion: Topical sucralfate demonstrated superior efficacy in promoting wound healing, reducing infection rates, and improving patient satisfaction compared to 5% povidone-iodine. These findings suggest that sucralfate is a viable alternative for managing chronic lower limb ulcers, potentially improving clinical outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. Further prospective studies are recommended to validate these results
Downloads
Metrics
References
Madden JW. Textbook of Surgery, The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Science. 11th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders and Company; 1977. p. 271.
Muldner GD, Haberer PA, Jeter KF. Clinician's Pocket Guide to Chronic Wound Repair. 4th ed. Springhouse: Springhouse Corporation; 1998. p. 85.
Cohen IK, Diegelmann RF, Crossland MC. Principles of Surgery. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.; 1994. p. 279.
Singer AJ, Clark RAF. Cutaneous Wound Healing. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;341:738-46.
Yücel A, Yildirim S, Akoğlu B, et al. The effect of sucralfate on wound healing in venous leg ulcers: a prospective randomised study. J Wound Care. 2020;29(7):389-395.
Choi HJ, Kim JS, Lee YJ. Topical sucralfate for treatment of traumatic wounds: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2021;18(3):327-334.
Sukhbir S, Malhotra S, Gupta A. Comparative evaluation of sucralfate and conventional treatment in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;144:159-165.
Demling RH, Desanti L. Effect of sucralfate on healing of partial-thickness burns: a preliminary report. Burns. 2002;28(1):22-25.
Drosou A, Falabella A, Kirsner RS. Antiseptics on wounds: an area of controversy. Wounds. 2003;15(5):149-166.
Pugliese M, Auteri M, Milani M. Clinical evaluation of a topical sucralfate-based cream in treating chronic wounds. J Dermatolog Treat. 2019;30(5):484-489.
Auteri M, Milani M. Patient satisfaction and wound healing outcomes with sucralfate-based cream: a real-world clinical experience. J Wound Care. 2020;29(4):210-215.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
