{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030434782608695653, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019254658385093167, 'mean_word_length': 4.836956521739131, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of octenidine wound gel versus povidone-iodine dressing in healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A randomized controlled trial for period of 1 year

Context: Octenidine is an antiseptic known for the past 20 years. Very few clinical studies have been done in evaluating the advantages of octenidine. Specific characters of no anti microbial resistance, good host tissue tolerability and very few clinical studies made us to conduct this study. Aims: To compare octenidine wound gel dressing versus povidone-iodine (PVI) dressing in healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in terms of mean percentage reduction in the ulcer area. Settings and Design: A randomized controlled study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in North Karnataka between January 2018 and December 2018. Subjects and Methods: Eighty cases of chronic DFU were selected and randomized (sequentially numbered, opaque-sealed envelopes technique) into two groups – Group A: octenidine dressing done and Group B: PVI dressing done for 14 days. The wound healing was calculated as the mean percentage reduction in the ulcer area. The wound healing was then compared between two groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Student's unpaired t-test and Chi-square test were used for analysis. Results: Ulcer healing was early in Group A compared to Group B; the mean percentage reduction in the ulcer area was 25.51 ± 9.26 and 14.48 ± 6.54 sq.cm in Group A and Group B, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Octenidine wound gel has shown good progress of ulcer healing in terms of ulcer area reduction compared to PVI dressing.