Literature DB >> 11712650

Prognostic factors in the prediction of chronic wound healing by electrical stimulation.

D Cukjati1, M Robnik-Sikonja, S Rebersek, I Kononenko, D Miklavcic.   

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the effects of wound, patient and treatment attributes on the wound healing rate and to propose a system for wound healing rate prediction. Predicting the wound healing rate from the initial wound, patient and treatment data collected in a database of 300 chronic wounds is not possible. After considering weekly follow-ups, it was determined that the best prognostic factors are weekly follow-ups of the wound healing process, which alone were found to predict accurately the wound healing rate after a minimum follow-up period of four weeks (at least five measurements of wound area). After combining the follow-ups with wound, patient and treatment attributes, the minimum follow-up period was reduced to two weeks (at least three measurements of wound area). After a follow-up period of two weeks, it was possible to predict the wound healing rate of an independent test set of chronic wounds with a relative squared error of 0.347, and after three weeks, with a relative squared error of 0.181 (using regression trees with linear equations in its leaves). Regression trees with a relative squared error close to 0 produce better prediction than with an error closer to 1. Results show that the type of treatment is just one of many prognostic factors. Arranged in order of decreasing prediction capability, prognostic factors are: wound size, patient's age, elapsed time from wound appearance to the beginning of the treatment, width-to-length ratio, location and type of treatment. The data collected support former findings that the biphasic- and direct-current stimulation contributes to faster healing of chronic wounds. The model of wound healing dynamics aids the prediction of chronic wound healing rate, and hence helps with the formulation of appropriate treatment decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11712650     DOI: 10.1007/bf02345144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  9 in total

1.  Pressure sores: classification and management.

Authors:  J D Shea
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  A multicentre study of percentage change in venous leg ulcer area as a prognostic index of healing at 24 weeks.

Authors:  J Kantor; D J Margolis
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.302

3.  Correlation between decrease in bacterial load and rate of wound healing.

Authors:  I R Lyman; J H Tenery; R P Basson
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1970-04

4.  Treatment of chronic wounds by means of electric and electromagnetic fields. Part 2. Value of FES parameters for pressure sore treatment.

Authors:  A Stefanovska; L Vodovnik; H Benko; R Turk
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  Using cluster analysis to develop a healing typology in vascular ulcers.

Authors:  M Johnson
Journal:  J Vasc Nurs       Date:  1997-06

6.  Healing rates of plantar ulcers in leprosy and diabetes.

Authors:  J A Birke; A Novick; C A Patout; W C Coleman
Journal:  Lepr Rev       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 0.537

7.  Venous leg ulcers: a prognostic index to predict time to healing.

Authors:  A I Skene; J M Smith; C J Doré; A Charlett; J D Lewis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-11-07

8.  A reliable method of determining wound healing rate.

Authors:  D Cukjati; S Rebersek; D Miklavcic
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.079

9.  Modelling of chronic wound healing dynamics.

Authors:  D Cukjati; S Rebersek; R Karba; D Miklavcic
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.079

  9 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  Prediction and monitoring the therapeutic response of chronic dermal wounds.

Authors:  Keith Moore; Roisin McCallion; Richard J Searle; Michael C Stacey; Keith G Harding
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Electrical Stimulation Technologies for Wound Healing.

Authors:  Luther C Kloth
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Clinical Trials Involving Biphasic Pulsed Current, MicroCurrent, and/or Low-Intensity Direct Current.

Authors:  Pamela E Houghton
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 4.  Electrical stimulation therapy for the treatment of pressure ulcers in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Deena Lala; Sandi J Spaulding; Shauna M Burke; Pamela E Houghton
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Electrical Shunting Prevents the Decline of Galvanotaxis After Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation in Human Dermal Fibroblasts.

Authors:  Mikiko Uemura; Masaharu Sugimoto; Yoshiyuki Yoshikawa; Rieko Inoue
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2022-07-12

6.  Hyperspectral analysis of soil nitrogen, carbon, carbonate, and organic matter using regression trees.

Authors:  Stephan Gmur; Daniel Vogt; Darlene Zabowski; L Monika Moskal
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.576

7.  Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Mohit Arora; Lisa A Harvey; Joanne V Glinsky; Lianne Nier; Lucija Lavrencic; Annette Kifley; Ian D Cameron
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.