# Comparative Evidence on Negative Pressure Therapy and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review of Independent Effectiveness and Clinical Applicability

## TL;DR

This paper compares two treatments for diabetic foot ulcers—negative pressure therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy—finding both effective but highlighting the need for individualized treatment choices.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic review comparing the clinical effectiveness and applicability of NPWT and HBOT for diabetic foot ulcers.

## Key findings

- NPWT accelerates wound healing but effectiveness varies by intervention type and clinical context.
- HBOT reduces major amputations and promotes angiogenesis.
- Both therapies are effective but require individualized treatment decisions.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: To evaluate and synthesize evidence on the independent clinical effectiveness, safety, and applicability of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), and to determine whether current evidence allows for a direct comparison between both interventions: NPWT and HBOT are widely advanced therapies for DFUs. Although both show benefits, the relative superiority of one over the other remains unclear. Systematic review of the literature conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using two electronic databases. The review included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and non-randomized studies. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using validated tools: RoB 2.0 for randomized trials, AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews, and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Results: A total of 22 studies were included. NPT was shown to be effective in accelerating wound healing, though results varied depending on the type of intervention and clinical context. HBOT demonstrated beneficial effects on angiogenesis and significantly reduced the rate of major amputations. Both therapies presented significant advantages in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. Conclusions: Negative pressure therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy are both effective treatments for diabetic foot ulcer healing. However, treatment selection should be individualized based on patient-specific clinical factors, ulcer severity, and available healthcare resources. Integrating these advanced therapies within a multidisciplinary care approach may optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Future research should include standardized, head-to-head RCTs.