Clinical Evaluation of Portable Wound Volumetric Measurement Devices.

Clicks: 225
ID: 33231
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #28 of 57 articles by views in advances in skin & wound care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Wound dimensional assessments are important in determining the progress of a wound and the effect of interventions on wound healing. The FastSCAN (FS; Polhemus Inc, Colchester, Vermont) and Silhouette Mobile (SM; ARANZ Medical, Christchurch, New Zealand) are portable devices that quantify surface area, depth, and volume of wounds. This study evaluated their reliability in producing accurate wound measurements.This study was conducted at the Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand.Eleven vascular patients with a combined total of 16 wounds underwent simultaneous wound measurements using three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) reconstruction, FS, and SM.The validity of FS and SM was tested against CT. Additionally, the interoperator reliability and intraoperator reliability of FS and SM were determined.The intraoperator reliability and interoperator reliability for volume recordings of the SM were 0.97 and 0.97, respectively, and for the FS were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The FS and SM measurements were not significantly different from CT. The SM consistently produced smaller wound volume and depth measurements compared with CT. In contrast, overestimation was observed for FS when compared with CT. However, the volume measurements in one wound were anomalous, being 10 times larger than CT measurements. Excluding this wound, there were strong correlations in wound volumes for SM and CT (r = 0.81; P ≤ .0001), for FS and CT (r = 0.99; P ≤ .001), and for SM and FS (r = 0.99; P ≤ .0001).Measurements from FS and SM were comparable to CT. Therefore, SM and FS devices both offer the benefit of being noncontact portable devices that produce reproducible and reliable readings.
Reference Key
chiang2018clinicaladvances Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Chiang, Nathaniel;Rodda, Odette A;Kang, Anna;Sleigh, Jamie;Vasudevan, Thodur;
Journal advances in skin & wound care
Year 2018
DOI
10.1097/01.ASW.0000540072.52782.24
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.