Literature DB >> 17008814

Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of MIST ultrasound therapy for the healing of chronic wounds.

William J Ennis1, Wesley Valdes, Marianne Gainer, Patricio Meneses.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the incidence of wound closure for chronic nonhealing lower extremity wounds of various etiologies using MIST ultrasound therapy, a 510(K)-approved, low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound device indicated for the cleansing and debridement of chronic wounds. (2) To determine the optimum treatment duration for therapy with this low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound device, quantifying end points that correlate with a maximal clinical response and identifying potential synergistic therapies that could be used in conjunction with this therapy. (3) To analyze the impact of low-frequency noncontact ultrasound therapy on the microcirculatory flow patterns within the wound bed.
DESIGN: A noncomparative clinical outcomes trial utilizing low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound.
SETTING: A tertiary-referral hospital-based wound clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients from a single tertiary-referral hospital-based wound clinic. Control data were obtained from a previously published, prospectively collected database from the same clinic.
INTERVENTIONS: During an 8-month period, a total of 29 lower extremity wounds in 23 patients who met criteria for inclusion were treated with low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound therapy. Standard of care was provided for 2 weeks for all wounds screened for the study. A failure to achieve an area reduction greater than 15% qualified the patient for enrollment to the trial and the addition of low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound therapy to the current treatment regimen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound healing, area and volume reduction, and laser Doppler-derived mean voltage (a marker for microcirculatory flow) are the main outcome measures for the study.
RESULTS: Overall, 69% of the wounds in the study were healed using an intent-to-treat model. When low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound was used as a stand-alone device, median time to healing was 7 weeks. Historic controls were healed with a median time to healing of 10 weeks; however, a statistically significant number of these patients required wound-related hospitalization and surgical procedures to achieve closure compared with the wounds in the present study.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound achieved healing in chronic wounds when used as a stand-alone device or in combination with moist wound care in 69% of cases. Response to low-frequency, noncontact ultrasound was evident within 4 weeks of therapy. Earlier transition to secondary procedures and decreased utilization of inpatient care might result in more cost-effective wound healing than the current standard of care. A well-designed health economic-based trial is warranted to assess this technology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17008814     DOI: 10.1097/00129334-200610000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care        ISSN: 1527-7941            Impact factor:   2.347


  18 in total

1.  Effects of non contact low-frequency ultrasound on healing of suspected deep tissue injury: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Jeremy S Honaker; Michael R Forston; Emily A Davis; Michelle M Wiesner; Jennifer A Morgan
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 2.  Biophysical Technologies for Management of Wound Bioburden.

Authors:  Holly Korzendorfer; Heather Hettrick
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  A retrospective analysis of acoustic pressure wound therapy: effects on the healing progression of chronic wounds.

Authors:  Jaimee Haan; Sharon Lucich
Journal:  J Am Col Certif Wound Spec       Date:  2009-05-01

4.  Roles of Physical Therapists in Wound Management, Part III: Select Biophysical Technologies and Management of Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulceration.

Authors:  Luther C Kloth
Journal:  J Am Col Certif Wound Spec       Date:  2009-06-24

Review 5.  Wound bed preparation: TIME for an update.

Authors:  Rhiannon L Harries; David C Bosanquet; Keith G Harding
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 6.  Extending the TIME concept: what have we learned in the past 10 years?(*).

Authors:  David J Leaper; Gregory Schultz; Keryln Carville; Jacqueline Fletcher; Theresa Swanson; Rebecca Drake
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  A pilot study evaluating non-contact low-frequency ultrasound and underlying molecular mechanism on diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  Min Yao; Hatice Hasturk; Alpdogan Kantarci; Guosheng Gu; Silvia Garcia-Lavin; Matteo Fabbi; Nanjin Park; Hisae Hayashi; Khaled Attala; Michael A French; Vickie R Driver
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 3.315

8.  Low-Frequency Ultrasound Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.

Authors:  Ying-Ju Ruby Chang; Julie Perry; Karen Cross
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 0.947

9.  Comparisons of negative pressure wound therapy and ultrasonic debridement for diabetic foot ulcers: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ruran Wang; Yanhua Feng; Bo Di
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

Review 10.  Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.

Authors:  Robert G Frykberg; Jaminelli Banks
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.730

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.