ABSTRACT Aim: To compare vacuum assisted closure dressing vs normal conventional dressing in diabetic foot ulcer. Methodology: One group was treated with conventional dressing after debridement and other group was treated with vacuum assisted closure dressing.Both groups were compared in terms of outcome, duration of hospital stay and response to therapy(appearance of granulation tissue, reduction in ulcer size), presence of complications such as infection, bleeding and the need for repeated debridements, and amputation. Results: The majority of patients in both groups (26- conventional, 28- VAC group) were treated with Oral hypoglycemic agents. Co-morbidities were systemic hypertension in 9 and 10, CAD in 3 and 3 and bronchialasthma in 0 and 1 and none in 24 and 22 patients. Wagner grading was Wagner G 1 in 16 and 15, Wagner G 2 in 19 and 20 and Wagner G 3 in 1 and 1. DFU size was <10 in 22 and 25 and >10 in 14 and 11. Area was <50 in 19 and 18 and between 50-100 in 5 and 8 and >100 in 12 and 10 patients in conventional and VAC group respectively. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). The mean HbA1C was 9.08 and 9.17, healing time (days) was 23.6 and 19.2, at the end of treatment, Mean DFU area was 62.45 among conventional dressing group, whereas it is 59.44 among VAC dressing group.Mean reduction in DFU area was 7.4 among conventional dressing group, whereas it is 11.68 among VAC dressing group.Number of debridement was 1.75 and 3.88, number of amputations was 0.08 and 0.02, VAS at 1 week was 2.0 and 13.6, 2weeks was 2.3 and 2.2, at 3 weeks was 2.7 and 110.3, at 4 weeks was 3.1 and 3.1, at 5 weeks was 3.2 and 5.2, 6 weeks was 3.2 and 3.8, 7 weeks was 3.5 and 5897.8 and 8 weeks was 4.0 and 4.0 respectively. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). Conclusion: VAC dressing therapy to be more efficient and safer with less complications which can be utilised for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer patients and prevention of morbidity like amputations and mortality.