Advances in skin & wound care · 2016
Evaluation of the Healing Progress of Pressure Ulcers Treated with Cathodal High-Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current: Results of a Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Polak Anna, Kloth Luther C, Blaszczak Edward, Taradaj Jakub, Nawrat-Szoltysik Agnieszka, Walczak Anna, Bialek Lidia, Paczula Malgorzata, Franek Andrzej, Kucio Cezary
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) as an adjunct to a standard wound care for the treatment of Stage II and III pressure ulcers (PrUs).
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study.
SETTING: Two nursing and care centers.
PATIENTS: Patients with PrUs that did not respond to previous treatment for at least 4 weeks were randomly assigned to the electrical stimulation (ES) group (25 patients; mean age of 79.92 ± 8.50 years; mean wound surface area [WSA] of 10.58 ± 10.57 cm) or to the control group (24 patients; mean age of 76.33 ± 12.74 years; mean WSA of 9.71 ± 6.70 cm).
INTERVENTIONS: Both the ES and control groups received standard wound care and respectively, cathodal HVMPC (154 microseconds; 100 pulses per second; 0.24 A; 250 μ/s) applied continuously for 50 minutes once a day, 5 times a week, or sham HVMPC.
MAIN OUTCOME: Percentage area reduction over 6 weeks of intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: In the ES group, there was a statistically significant decrease in WSA after 1 week of treatment (35% ± 30.5%) compared with 17.07% ± 34.13% in the control group (P = .032). After treatment, at week 6, percentage area reduction in the ES group was 80.31% ± 29.02% versus 54.65% ± 42.65% in the control group (P = .046).
CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal HVMPC reduces the WSA of Stage II and III PrUs. The results are consistent with the results of other researchers who used HVMPC to treat PrUs.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study.
SETTING: Two nursing and care centers.
PATIENTS: Patients with PrUs that did not respond to previous treatment for at least 4 weeks were randomly assigned to the electrical stimulation (ES) group (25 patients; mean age of 79.92 ± 8.50 years; mean wound surface area [WSA] of 10.58 ± 10.57 cm) or to the control group (24 patients; mean age of 76.33 ± 12.74 years; mean WSA of 9.71 ± 6.70 cm).
INTERVENTIONS: Both the ES and control groups received standard wound care and respectively, cathodal HVMPC (154 microseconds; 100 pulses per second; 0.24 A; 250 μ/s) applied continuously for 50 minutes once a day, 5 times a week, or sham HVMPC.
MAIN OUTCOME: Percentage area reduction over 6 weeks of intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: In the ES group, there was a statistically significant decrease in WSA after 1 week of treatment (35% ± 30.5%) compared with 17.07% ± 34.13% in the control group (P = .032). After treatment, at week 6, percentage area reduction in the ES group was 80.31% ± 29.02% versus 54.65% ± 42.65% in the control group (P = .046).
CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal HVMPC reduces the WSA of Stage II and III PrUs. The results are consistent with the results of other researchers who used HVMPC to treat PrUs.