Comparison of 3-dimensional Wound Measurement With Laser-assisted and Hand Measurements: A Retrospective Chart Review

Evan S. Darwin, Jose A. Jaller, Penelope A. Hirt, Robert Kirsner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise. PURPOSE: A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)36-41
Number of pages6
JournalWound management & prevention
Volume65
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Lasers
Hand
Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Wound Healing
Varicose Ulcer
Outpatients

Cite this

Comparison of 3-dimensional Wound Measurement With Laser-assisted and Hand Measurements : A Retrospective Chart Review. / Darwin, Evan S.; Jaller, Jose A.; Hirt, Penelope A.; Kirsner, Robert.

In: Wound management & prevention, Vol. 65, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 36-41.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{315ea0c4fdbd462684db482e9dbf1d1b,
title = "Comparison of 3-dimensional Wound Measurement With Laser-assisted and Hand Measurements: A Retrospective Chart Review",
abstract = "Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise. PURPOSE: A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.",
author = "Darwin, {Evan S.} and Jaller, {Jose A.} and Hirt, {Penelope A.} and Robert Kirsner",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.25270/wmp.2019.1.3641",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "36--41",
journal = "Wound management & prevention",
issn = "2640-5237",
publisher = "HMP Communications",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of 3-dimensional Wound Measurement With Laser-assisted and Hand Measurements

T2 - A Retrospective Chart Review

AU - Darwin, Evan S.

AU - Jaller, Jose A.

AU - Hirt, Penelope A.

AU - Kirsner, Robert

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise. PURPOSE: A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.

AB - Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise. PURPOSE: A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068777054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068777054&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.25270/wmp.2019.1.3641

DO - 10.25270/wmp.2019.1.3641

M3 - Article

C2 - 30724748

AN - SCOPUS:85068777054

VL - 65

SP - 36

EP - 41

JO - Wound management & prevention

JF - Wound management & prevention

SN - 2640-5237

IS - 1

ER -