4.1 Article

Use of a silicon microsensor for pressure monitoring inside the wound and outcomes on healing

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOUND CARE
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 589-594

Publisher

MA HEALTHCARE LTD
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2012.21.12.589

Keywords

interfascial pressure; neck compartment syndrome; neck surgery; oncology; microcirculation

Categories

Funding

  1. Internal Grant Agency, Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NR8387]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To ascertain the extent to which pressure within a defined neck compartment could be used as predictor for wound healing. Method: Thirty patients with various head and neck malignancies that were treated surgically, were considered prospectively. In the course of surgery a pressure microsensor was implanted into the defined neck compartment and data were collected over the first 48 hours postoperatively. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the strength of interfascial pressure (IP) as predictor for wound healing. Results: Mean IP was 7.45 +/- 6.15mmHg (95%CI 7.13; 7.77). A logistic regression model relating good/disturbed healing outcome revealed that the mean pressure is the key variable, with a major influence on healing outcome. However, this type of model only explains approximately 46% of the total variation in the responses. This implies, that although pressure change contributes significantly in explaining variations in healing, there may be other significant predictors that were not included in the study. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of IP measurement in the neck, verifies it in a human clinical experiment and highlights its potential in the prediction of wound healing complications. The study seems to suggest that for high probability of good wound healing (>90%) the IP values should be monitored and maintained below 7mmHg. At present, there are no comparator studies, as this kind of measurement in the neck area has not been reported yet.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available