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 , 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":"{\"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}","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。
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.