Anna Polak1, Luther C Kloth2, Edward Blaszczak3, Jakub Taradaj4, Agnieszka Nawrat-Szoltysik5, Tomasz Ickowicz6, Ewa Hordynska7, Andrzej Franek8, Cezary Kucio9. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education, Mikolowska 72A, Katowice 40-065 Poland and Medical Department, Katowice School of Exonomics, Katowice, Poland. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Medical Biophysics, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education and Institute of Physical Therapy, Public School of Medicine, Opole, Poland. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education and Skilled Nursing Home, Sw Elzbieta, Ruda Slaska, Poland. 6. Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Center Repty, Tarnowskie Gory, Poland. 7. Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Center Repty. 8. Department of Medical Biophysics, Medical University of Silesia. 9. Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education and Department of Internal Medicine, Specialist Hospital, Jaworzno, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are not available. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of Category II-IV pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study. SETTING: Three nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Sixty-three participants with PrUs were randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: N = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD 8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: N = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and a placebo ES group (PG: N = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24). INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 μs; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 μC/s) for 50 minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received, respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week 6. RESULTS: Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.06-94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51-88.04). These reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI 23.60-57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different regarding treatment results. LIMITATIONS: The time of treatment proved insufficient for PrUs to close. CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC similarly reduced the area of Category II-IV PrUs.
BACKGROUND: Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are not available. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of Category II-IV pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study. SETTING: Three nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Sixty-three participants with PrUs were randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: N = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD 8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: N = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and a placebo ES group (PG: N = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24). INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 μs; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 μC/s) for 50 minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received, respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week 6. RESULTS: Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.06-94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51-88.04). These reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI 23.60-57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different regarding treatment results. LIMITATIONS: The time of treatment proved insufficient for PrUs to close. CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC similarly reduced the area of Category II-IV PrUs.
Authors: Jakub Taradaj; Barbara Shay; Robert Dymarek; Mirosław Sopel; Karolina Walewicz; Dimitri Beeckman; Lisette Schoonhoven; Amit Gefen; Joanna Rosińczuk Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 3.738
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