一种用于康复中心病人群体伤口愈合的微电流产生伤口护理装置的演示

Emily Whitcomb NHA , Nina Monroe RN, DON , Jennifer Hope-Higman LPN, WCC, DWC , Penny Campbell PT, CWS, FACCWS, DAPWCA
{"title":"一种用于康复中心病人群体伤口愈合的微电流产生伤口护理装置的演示","authors":"Emily Whitcomb NHA ,&nbsp;Nina Monroe RN, DON ,&nbsp;Jennifer Hope-Higman LPN, WCC, DWC ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Demonstration of a Microcurrent-Generating Wound Care Device for Wound Healing Within a Rehabilitation Center Patient Population\",\"authors\":\"Emily Whitcomb NHA ,&nbsp;Nina Monroe RN, DON ,&nbsp;Jennifer Hope-Higman LPN, WCC, DWC ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

目的康复环境中的伤口护理是一个昂贵而困难的问题。本回顾性研究的目的是评估与标准伤口护理方法相比,使用微电流产生伤口护理装置治疗急性和慢性伤口愈合结果的差异。方法38例采用标准创面处理(SOC;n = 20),或使用微电流产生创面装置(MCD, n = 18)治疗的患者进行回顾性分析。对伤口进行评估,直到临床认为伤口闭合或愈合,上皮化率高达100%。所有患者(18-99岁)均为单伤口患者。比较各组创面愈合天数和创面体积缩小率。持续减少伤口大小的改善也被检查。结果SOC组创面愈合时间平均为36.25 d (SD = 28.89), MCD组创面愈合时间平均为19.78 d (SD = 14.45), p = 0.036。SOC组每天体积减少率为- 3.83%,而MCD组每天体积减少率为- 9.82% (p = 0.013)。SOC组创面单调闭合率为50%,MCD组为83.3% (p = 0.018)。结论:该双中心回顾性研究表明,与在康复中心环境中使用SOC相比,使用MCD的伤口愈合速度更快,愈合力更强,达到45.4%。这将转化为改善患者护理,并可能节省大量成本。与其他伤口护理方法相比,使用MCD的经济效益将用于未来的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Demonstration of a Microcurrent-Generating Wound Care Device for Wound Healing Within a Rehabilitation Center Patient Population

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is Treating all Pressure Wound Patients with Vitamins A, C, Zinc and Arginine Justified?∗ Omegaven Improves Skin Morphometric Indices in Diabetic Rat Model Wound Healing Managing Wounds with Exposed Bone and Tendon with an Esterified Hyaluronic Acid Matrix (eHAM): A Literature Review and Personal Experience Breast Cerclage: An Innovative Expedient for Perimammary Dehiscence Healing Skin Perfusion Pressure and Wound Closure Time in Lower Extremity Wounds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1