Zizi M Ibrahim1,2, Instar S Waked1, Olfat Ibrahim3. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy for Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt. 2. Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Rehabilitation Sciences Department, College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Science for Physical Therapy, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with that of microcurrent electrical stimulation (MES) on wound surface area, length of stay (LoS) and colony count of wounds in patients with burns. METHOD: Patients with thermal dermal burn injuries covering 25-40% of total body surface area were enrolled in this clinical trial. Participants were randomly allocated into three, equal-sized groups: patients receiving NPWT, patients receiving MES and a control group which received standard wound care. All groups received the same traditional physical therapy programme in addition to the same nursing and medical care. In all groups, wound surface area, colony count and LoS were measured 72 hours after thermal burn injury (pre), after 10 days and again at 21 days from the beginning of the study. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients took part in the study. There were statistically significant decreases in wound surface area observed in all groups (p<0.05) while MES showed the highest mean percentage of reduction in wound surface. MES and NPWT both showed the lowest values for bacterial growth but NPWT was superior in colony count reduction. For LoS, both MES and NPWT showed the lowest mean value. CONCLUSION: From the findings of this study, MES was more effective in decreasing wound surface area in burn wounds while NPWT was more effective in reducing bacterial growth.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with that of microcurrent electrical stimulation (MES) on wound surface area, length of stay (LoS) and colony count of wounds in patients with burns. METHOD: Patients with thermal dermal burn injuries covering 25-40% of total body surface area were enrolled in this clinical trial. Participants were randomly allocated into three, equal-sized groups: patients receiving NPWT, patients receiving MES and a control group which received standard wound care. All groups received the same traditional physical therapy programme in addition to the same nursing and medical care. In all groups, wound surface area, colony count and LoS were measured 72 hours after thermal burn injury (pre), after 10 days and again at 21 days from the beginning of the study. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients took part in the study. There were statistically significant decreases in wound surface area observed in all groups (p<0.05) while MES showed the highest mean percentage of reduction in wound surface. MES and NPWT both showed the lowest values for bacterial growth but NPWT was superior in colony count reduction. For LoS, both MES and NPWT showed the lowest mean value. CONCLUSION: From the findings of this study, MES was more effective in decreasing wound surface area in burn wounds while NPWT was more effective in reducing bacterial growth.
Authors: Juan Avendaño-Coy; Noelia M Martín-Espinosa; Arturo Ladriñán-Maestro; Julio Gómez-Soriano; María Isabel Suárez-Miranda; Purificación López-Muñoz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 4.614