4.8 Article

Bioimpedance method for monitoring venous ulcers: Clinical proof-of-concept study

Journal

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
Volume 178, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2021.112974

Keywords

Bioimpedance; Electrode array; Chronic wound; Monitoring

Funding

  1. Finnish Cultural Foundation [00150386]
  2. Graduate School of Tampere University
  3. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) [1433/31/2012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study developed a bioimpedance measurement-based method and system for evaluating wound healing status, demonstrating it as a promising quantitative tool for venous ulcers.
Evaluation of wound status is typically based on means which require the removal of dressings. These procedures are often also subjective and prone to inter-observer bias. To overcome aforementioned issues a bioimpedance measurement-based method and measurement system has been developed to evaluate the state of wound healing. The measurement system incorporated a purpose-built bioimpedance device, a measurement software and a screen-printed electrode array. The feasibility and the performance of the system and method were assessed in an open non-randomized follow-up study of seven venous ulcers. Healing of ulcers was monitored until the complete re-epithelialization was achieved. The duration of follow-up was from 19 to 106 days (mean 55.8 +/- 25.2 days). A variable designated as the Wound Status Index (WSI), derived from the bioimpedance data, was used for describing the state of wound healing. The wound surface area was measured using acetate tracing for the reference. A strong correlation was found between the WSI and the acetate tracing data, r(93) = 0.84, p < 0.001. The results indicate that the bioimpedance measurement-based method is a promising quantitative tool for the evaluation of the status of venous ulcers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available