It's great that the treatment worked for you, unfortunately it may not always and the risk in using an alternative treatment is that it may delay other treatments at a time when they have a chance of being successful..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503389/
It is rapid intervention that is important. It's probably not true to say all amputations can be avoided but it seems that is true to say that with swift conventional intervention 80%+ can be avoided.
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/About Us/What we say/0160b-state-nation-2013-england-1213.pdf
Even better of course is preventative care.
The hospital I attend in France has had to perform no amputations for many years. In part because they are avoided with good preventative care and education and in part because in the unfortunate event of developing an ulcer , patients know to contact their doctors quickly and from there, there is effective care. (using conventional medicine)
The incidence in the UK is actually falling, though numbers are unfortunately rising because there are far more people with diabetes. The big problem in the UK is that the provision of foot care is patchy with data showing big variations in outcomes. In those areas that have rapid referral multiple disciplinary teams there are far fewer amputations ie in Brent which has one .There were ten amputations (major and minor) a year per 10,000 people , compared with an average across all PCTs of 27.45
(it's one of the things that DUK and NICE are pushing for; it costs money to set up but there is an eventual large saving in NHS resources. )
The NHS actually doesn't seem to be adverse to trying alternative therapies for wound care and treatment may including maggots, honey and sugar dressings. At the other end of the scale and possibly related since it increases oxygenated blood flow. The NHS does fund hyberbaric chamber therapy in some areas for some cases of diabetic leg ulcers and there are some trials going on. ( Though there aren't many facilities and some areas have it as 'do not fund' since a review in 2013 said that they are of uncertain benefit for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.)
There is no good trial evidence to show that ozone therapy is effective (google reveals a review by the Malaysian health authorities and the Canadians who couldn't find any .
http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/234_No8_ozonetherapy_preassess_e.pdf)
Unfortunately, ozone therapy is also touted as an alternative cure for everything under the sun including cancer. You will find it referred to in quackwatch and on the 'what's the harm website.
Although it may be an unscientific way of looking at it, I suspect that is probably one reason that any claims for efficacy in wound care are less likely to be considered
(edit: I've just followed up the Bocci paper which seems to be very speculative . It seems that Bocci is very much a lone proponent who has authored many of the papers on the subject)
