A total of 120 patients with DFU hospitalized in the Changsha Central Hospital from August 2020 to September 2021 were selected as the subjects. Sample size of 126 was rounded off to 120 DFU patients (60 patients in each group) was calculated with 95% confidence interval, power of study 84%, P1 = 20% and P2 = 15% using WHO calculator.10. Inclusion criteria: patients were younger than 70 years old; all patients were in line with the diagnostic criteria of diabetic foot ulcer; all patients voluntarily participated in the experimental and signed the informed consent. Exclusion criteria: patients with tuberculosis, tumor, severe liver and kidney dysfunction and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases; patients with low treatment compliance and unable to carry out the test according to the requirements. Patients within the experimental were randomized into a control group (n = 60) and a experimental group (n = 60) according to random number table method. There were 41 male patients and 19 female patients in the control group, with the age ranging from 46 to 70 years old, with a mean of (61.23 ± 2.33) years old, and the course of disease ranging from 3 to 9 years, with a mean of (5.49 ± 1.14) years. There were 37 male patients and 23 female patients in the experimental group, with the age ranging from 44 to 70 years old, with a mean of (60.86 ± 2.56) years, and the course of disease ranging from 4 to 9 years, with a mean of (5.87 ± 1.36) years. The age, gender, course of disease, BMI, FPG, HbAlc and other clinical data of the patients in the two groups were not statistically significant after comparison (P > 0.05), which can be explored.

After admission, patients in the two groups need to implement active anti-infection, control their blood sugar and blood lipid indicators, effectively deal with diabetic complications and complications, strengthen nutritional nerves, improve microcirculation, and enhance the nutritional status of patients. Standardized debridement, drainage, dressing replacement and negative pressure suction were carried out to ensure the cleanliness of the wound [3] . On the basis of the above measures, the patients in the control group were treated with BSB. The specific method was to cut the dressing according to the size of the wound of the patient, take out BSB and cover it around the wound and at the sunken position of the patient. After ensuring that the dressing was effectively attached to the wound, sterile gauze was used to cover, wrap and fix it. The patient’s dressing was changed regularly every day. The time of dressing change was adjusted according to the patient’s secretion. The patients in the experimental group were treated with Suile^TM BSB healing dressing combined with autologous platelet-rich gel. The main methods were as follows: 1) Preparation of platelet-rich plasma: based on the size of the wound and sinus tract, the peripheral venous blood was collected and the ratio of blood volume to wound size was determined to be 10:1. The whole blood was collected by secondary centrifugation at a speed of 1323 r/min. The centrifugal radius is 8 cm, the centrifugal time is 4 minutes, the upper plasma and the white membrane layer and the upper layer of the red blood cells which are about 1 mm close to the boundary are sucked by a pasteurized tube and transferred to another centrifugal tube, the secondary centrifugation is carried out, the rotating speed is 2646 r/min, the centrifugal radius is 8 cm, after 6 minutes of centrifugation, a platelet deposition layer can be obtained, Take a pasteurized tube to suck and remove most of the plasma in the upper part. The rest must be based on the use of the required plasma and blood cell components. After standing for half an hour, shake the centrifuge tube to obtain PRP. A total of five preparations are required. 2) Preparation of APG: After treating the wound surface, 1 mL of 10% calcium gluconate was added to 2000 u thrombin freeze-dried powder to prepare thrombin-calcium agent, and then PRP and thrombin-calcium agent were mixed in a ratio of 10:1 to prepare APG. The prepared APG is evenly coated on the wound surface of the patient or injected into the sinus tract by a platelet gel injector. After the coagulation of platelet gel, the surface was covered with vaseline gauze, covered with sterile gauze and bandaged and fixed, and the dressing was changed every 3 days. After the granulation tissue of the wound was formed, BSB was added to cover the periphery and depression of the wound, and the dressing was changed every 3 to 5 days [4] .

The total effect, healing time, hospital stay, inflammatory factor levels and ulcer area were compared between the two groups. 1) Total effect of treatment: After treatment, the ulcer surface of the patient is completely healed, the repair is good, and there is no infection, which is considered as significant effect; after treatment, the ulcer surface of the patient is healed well, and the healing area is more than 30%, which is considered as effective; after treatment, if the healing area is less than 30% or aggravated, it is considered as ineffective; 2) The total effective rate of the treatment was the markedly effective rate plus the effective rate [5] . The main inflammatory factors in the two groups were WBC, CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α.

The data analysis software in this experimental is SPSS 25.0 statistical software, the expression method of enumeration data is rate, the test method is χ² test, the expression method of measurement data is mean ± standard deviation, the test method is t-test, P < 0.05 data comparison is meaningful.

The total treatment effect of the control group was worse than that of the experimental group, and the data between the groups were significant after comparison (P < 0.05). The main contents of the data are shown in Table 1 below.

The healing time and hospitalization time of the control group were longer than

those of the experimental group, and the data between the groups were significant after comparison (P < 0.05). The main contents of the data are shown in Table 2 below.

Before treatment, the levels of inflammatory factors in the two groups were not statistically significant after comparison (P > 0.05); after treatment, the levels of inflammatory factors including WBC, CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α in the control group were higher than those in the experimental group, and the data between the groups were significant after comparison (P < 0.05). See Table 3 below for main data.

Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the ulcer area between the two groups (P > 0.05); after 14 days of treatment, the ulcer area in the control group was larger than that in the experimental group, and the data between the two groups were significant (P < 0.05). See Table 4 below for the main contents of the data.