Emily Whitcomb NHA , Nina Monroe RN, DON , Jennifer Hope-Higman LPN, WCC, DWC , Penny Campbell PT, CWS, FACCWS, DAPWCA
{"title":"Demonstration of a Microcurrent-Generating Wound Care Device for Wound Healing Within a Rehabilitation Center Patient Population","authors":"Emily Whitcomb NHA , Nina Monroe RN, DON , Jennifer Hope-Higman LPN, WCC, DWC , Penny Campbell PT, CWS, FACCWS, DAPWCA","doi":"10.1016/j.jccw.2013.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Wound care in a rehabilitation environment is a costly and difficult problem. The goal of this retrospective study is to evaluate differences in wound closure outcomes in acute and chronic wounds when treated with a microcurrent-generating wound care device as compared to standard wound care methods.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data files of 38 patients who received either standard wound treatment (SOC; <em>n</em> = 20), or were treated with a microcurrent-generating wound device (MCD, <em>n</em><span> = 18), were retrospectively reviewed. Wounds were assessed until deemed clinically to have closed or healed with up to 100% epithelialization. All patients (18–99 years) with single wounds were included. The number of days to wound closure and the rate of wound volume reduction were compared across groups. Persistent reduction of wound size improvement was also examined.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The wounds in the SOC group closed on average at 36.25 days (SD = 28.89), while the MCD group closed significantly faster in 19.78 days (SD = 14.45), </span><em>p</em> = 0.036. The rate of volume reduction per day was −3.83% for SOC vs. −9.82% volume reduction per day (<em>p</em> = 0.013) for the MCD group. The SOC group had 50% of its wounds close monotonically vs. 83.3% in the MCD group (<em>p</em> = 0.018).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This two-center retrospective study demonstrated a 45.4% faster, and more robust healing of wounds with the use of the MCD, when compared to SOC in a rehabilitation center environment. This translates into improved patient care, and potentially significant cost savings. Economic benefits for the use of MCD compared to other wound care methods are planned for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90358,"journal":{"name":"The journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jccw.2013.07.001","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of the American College of Clinical Wound Specialists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213510313000444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16
Abstract
Purpose
Wound care in a rehabilitation environment is a costly and difficult problem. The goal of this retrospective study is to evaluate differences in wound closure outcomes in acute and chronic wounds when treated with a microcurrent-generating wound care device as compared to standard wound care methods.
Methods
Data files of 38 patients who received either standard wound treatment (SOC; n = 20), or were treated with a microcurrent-generating wound device (MCD, n = 18), were retrospectively reviewed. Wounds were assessed until deemed clinically to have closed or healed with up to 100% epithelialization. All patients (18–99 years) with single wounds were included. The number of days to wound closure and the rate of wound volume reduction were compared across groups. Persistent reduction of wound size improvement was also examined.
Results
The wounds in the SOC group closed on average at 36.25 days (SD = 28.89), while the MCD group closed significantly faster in 19.78 days (SD = 14.45), p = 0.036. The rate of volume reduction per day was −3.83% for SOC vs. −9.82% volume reduction per day (p = 0.013) for the MCD group. The SOC group had 50% of its wounds close monotonically vs. 83.3% in the MCD group (p = 0.018).
Conclusion
This two-center retrospective study demonstrated a 45.4% faster, and more robust healing of wounds with the use of the MCD, when compared to SOC in a rehabilitation center environment. This translates into improved patient care, and potentially significant cost savings. Economic benefits for the use of MCD compared to other wound care methods are planned for future research.