A Comparative Study on the Effect of PRP in Healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers Compared to Standard Treatment in Diabetic Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Study

Emerging therapies such as autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), which delivers a supraphysiological concentration of growth factors including but not limited to PDGF, VEGF, and TGF-β have shown promise in enhancing tissue regeneration and healing. This study compares two treatments for diabetic foot ulcers: the standard method (normal saline washing and routine debridement) and the PRP method (autologous platelet-rich plasma). It evaluates PRP's effectiveness in accelerating healing compared to standard care in diabetic patients, specifically in terms of wound area reduction over a 6-week period, the proportion of patients achieving complete healing, and the average time to healing.

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted on patients referred to Velayat Hospital, 50 eligible type I and II diabetic patients aged 40-70 were randomly allocated to two groups using color-coded sealed envelopes, ensuring allocation concealment. One group received PRP and the other standard treatment. Double-blinding was maintained by using identical syringes for both treatments, and independent assessors unaware of group assignments evaluated wound healing weekly.

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding gender and HbA1c levels. However, a significant difference was observed in wound healing rates between the PRP method and the standard method across the two groups. Additionally, a meaningful relationship was found when comparing the average age of patients treated with both methods. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding gender and HbA1c levels.

Ultimately, our research indicates that the PRP method is a more effective alternative to the standard method alone for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Additionally, younger patients demonstrated a faster rate of diabetic foot ulcer healing. PRP's superior efficacy may justify its moderate upfront costs given potential long-term savings from reduced complications.