Efficacy, tolerability and patient benefit of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment versus surgical debridement: a randomized clinical study

Dermatology. 2011;222(3):244-9. doi: 10.1159/000326116. Epub 2011 Apr 5.

Abstract

Background: Low-frequency ultrasound has been shown to be an alternative to surgical wound debridement (WD) to stimulate wound healing; however, few data are available.

Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability and benefit of both wound treatment methods.

Methods: A monocentric prospective randomized-controlled clinical study assessing patient-reported outcomes and clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment (UAW) compared to WD.

Results: In total, 67 patients were treated. Efficacy and tolerability were found to be good for both treatments, with 88% of UAW and 85.2% of WD patients experiencing more-than-minimal patient benefit. Quality of life improved significantly. Wound status improved and pain decreased in both groups.

Conclusion: Compared to the gold standard (i.e. WD), UAW displays the same high efficacy, comparable patient benefit and improved quality of life. Both procedures are equally suitable for highly beneficial guideline-based treatment of chronic wounds.

Publication types

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Chronic Disease
  • Debridement*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Leg Ulcer / surgery
  • Leg Ulcer / therapy*
  • Male
  • Pain / surgery
  • Quality of Life
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Ultrasonic Therapy*
  • Wound Healing*
  • Wounds and Injuries / surgery
  • Wounds and Injuries / therapy*