Jennifer K Graebert1, M Kristi Henzel2, Kord S Honda3, Kath M Bogie4. 1. APT Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center , Cleveland, Ohio. 2. APT Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center , Cleveland, Ohio. ; Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Dermatology, Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, Ohio. 4. APT Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center , Cleveland, Ohio. ; Department of Orthopedics & Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
Objective: In a systematic preclinical investigation of ischemic wound healing, we investigated the hypothesis that electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of ischemic wounds. Approach: The effects of varying clinically relevant ES variables were evaluated using our modified version of the Gould F344 rat ischemic wound model. Stimulation was delivered using the novel lightweight integrated, single-channel, current-controlled modular surface stimulation (MSS) device. Stepwise variation allowed the effects of five different stimulation paradigms within an appropriate current density range to be studied. Within each group, 8-10 animals were treated for 28 days or until the ischemic wounds were healed and 5 animals were treated for 12 days. Eight rats received sham devices. A quantitative multivariable outcomes assessment procedure was used to evaluate the effects of ES. Results: Ischemic wounds treated with a decreased interpulse interval (IPI) had the highest rate of complete wound closure at 3 weeks. Wounds treated with decreased pulse amplitude (PA) had a lower proportion of closed wounds than sham ischemic wounds and showed sustained inflammation with a lack of wound contraction. Innovation: Our systematic study of varying ES paradigms using the novel MSS device provides preliminary insight into potential mechanisms of ES in ischemic wound healing. Conclusion: Clinically appropriate ES can more than double the proportion of ischemic wounds closed by 3 weeks in this model. Ninety percent of wounds treated with a decreased IPI healed by 21 days compared with only 29% of ischemic wounds treated with decreased PA, which appears to inhibit healing.
Objective: In a systematic preclinical investigation of ischemic wound healing, we investigated the hypothesis that electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of ischemic wounds. Approach: The effects of varying clinically relevant ES variables were evaluated using our modified version of the Gould F344 ratischemic wound model. Stimulation was delivered using the novel lightweight integrated, single-channel, current-controlled modular surface stimulation (MSS) device. Stepwise variation allowed the effects of five different stimulation paradigms within an appropriate current density range to be studied. Within each group, 8-10 animals were treated for 28 days or until the ischemic wounds were healed and 5 animals were treated for 12 days. Eight rats received sham devices. A quantitative multivariable outcomes assessment procedure was used to evaluate the effects of ES. Results:Ischemic wounds treated with a decreased interpulse interval (IPI) had the highest rate of complete wound closure at 3 weeks. Wounds treated with decreased pulse amplitude (PA) had a lower proportion of closed wounds than sham ischemic wounds and showed sustained inflammation with a lack of wound contraction. Innovation: Our systematic study of varying ES paradigms using the novel MSS device provides preliminary insight into potential mechanisms of ES in ischemic wound healing. Conclusion: Clinically appropriate ES can more than double the proportion of ischemic wounds closed by 3 weeks in this model. Ninety percent of wounds treated with a decreased IPI healed by 21 days compared with only 29% of ischemic wounds treated with decreased PA, which appears to inhibit healing.
Authors: Lisa Kawasaki; Vivian K Mushahwar; Chester Ho; Sean P Dukelow; Leo L H Chan; K Ming Chan Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Julien Ghaye; Madhura Avinash Kamat; Linda Corbino-Giunta; Paolo Silacci; Guy Vergères; Giovanni De Micheli; Sandro Carrara Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 4.355