Rehabilitacja Medyczna (Mar 2018)

Pressure injury treatment with anodal and cathodal electrical stimulation in persons with nervous system injuries. A prospective, randomized, clinical study. Preliminary report.

  • Anna Polak,
  • Agnieszka Nawrat-Szołtysik,
  • Tomasz Ickowicz,
  • Ewa Kucio,
  • Kamila Kasprzak,
  • Aleksandra Chlebek,
  • Beata Etfer,
  • Małgorzata Pniowska,
  • Jolanta Rajca,
  • Sandra Łagodzic,
  • Wojciech Kania

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0011.6824
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 3
pp. 23 – 34

Abstract

Read online Read online

Introduction: Electrical stimulation (ES) is a treatment recommended for pressure injuries (PIs), but an optimal protocol methodology for wound treatment has not yet been established. Objective: Comparing the effectiveness of cathodal and anodal ES in the treatment of category II-IV pressure injuries. Research project: Experimental trial with randomization. Material and methods: 38 individuals with pressure wounds treated at the Rehabilitation Centre in the region of Upper Silesia were randomly divided into the anodal ES group (AG/12 people, mean age 52.83 years), cathodal ES group (CG/13 people, average age 52.00 years) and the ES placebo group (PG/13 people, average age 54.46 years). Standard pressure injury treatment was implemented in all patients. Additionally, in the AG and CG, ES with high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 μs; 100 pps; 0.36 A; 360 μC/s) was applied for 50 minutes a day, fi ve days a week, for 8 weeks. In the AG group, the healing electrode was an anode, while in the CG, cathodes were used. In the PG, sham ES was performed. Both electrodes were placed on moist gauze. The electrode for treatment was placed on the surface of the wound and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 15 cm from the PI edge. The surface area of the PIs was measured before and after each subsequent week of therapy. Results: In the AG and CG, the surface of the pressure injuries decreased by 73.68% (SD 28.03) and 76.02% (SD 17.51), respectively. These results were statistically signifi cantly higher than in the PG (44.20%, SD 20.86). The results obtained in AG and CG did not signifi cantly differ statistically. Conclusions: High-voltage anodal and cathodal ES cause a decrease in category II-IV pressure injuries to a similar extent.

Keywords