Utility of a three-dimensional wound measurement device in pressure ulcers
Authors Goto T, Nakagami G, Nakai A, Noyori S, Sasaki S, Hayashi C, Miyagaki T, Akamata K, Sanada H
Received 24 July 2017
Accepted for publication 12 September 2017
Published 24 October 2017 Volume 2017:4 Pages 129—133
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Prof. Dr. Marco Romanelli
Taichi Goto,1–3 Gojiro Nakagami,1,4 Ayano Nakai,1 Shuhei Noyori,1,5 Sanae Sasaki,6 Chieko Hayashi,6 Tomomitsu Miyagaki,7 Kaname Akamata,7 Hiromi Sanada1,4
1Department of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, 2Global Leadership Initiative for an Age-Friendly Society, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 3Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Chiyoda-ku, Japan; 4Global Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 5Graduate Program for Social ICT Global Creative Leaders, The University of Tokyo, 6Department of Nursing, 7Department of Dermatology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Introduction: Depth assessment is important for severe pressure ulcers (PUs); however, a device for the metric measurement of wounds, including depth, is lacking in clinical settings. Recent technological advancements have enabled the evaluation of the depth of wounds, and three-dimensional measurements are now available. The aim of this study was to test the utility of a newly developed three-dimensional wound measurement device in the clinical setting.
Methods: We recruited three patients, each with a PU, who were being treated by a PU team at a university hospital. We measured the length, width, area, and maximal depth of the ulcers by using the device and with the conventional method. The ulcer volume was measured only with the device. The difference in measurement results of the device before and after debridement was compared in the first patient. The difference in measurement results between the conventional method and the device was compared in the second patient. Correlation coefficients between the conventional method and the device obtained from longitudinal data were calculated in the third patient.
Results: The changes in measurements between before and after debridement were easily detected by the device in the first patient. Although the maximal depth was different, the length, width, and area were consistent between the conventional method and the device in the second patient. The correlation coefficients of the length, width, and area between the conventional method and the device were 0.35, 0.48, and 0.59, respectively, in the third patient whose PU exhibited a vague wound edge.
Conclusion: Although two-dimensional measurements were comparable between the conventional method and the device, there were some challenges to performing three-dimensional measurement more precisely. A further study is needed to determine the specific characteristics of wounds that result in poor measurement accuracy.
Keywords: three-dimensional wound measurement device, wound depth, wound volume
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]