Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 42   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 397-398

Effectiveness of microcurrent therapy on sacral pressure ulcer: Our first experience


School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Pamukkale University, Kinikli Kampusu, Denizli, Turkey

Date of Web Publication3-Mar-2017

Correspondence Address:
F Altuğ
School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Pamukkale University, Kinikli Kampusu, Denizli
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.201439

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ünal A, Gülsen &, Altuğ F. Effectiveness of microcurrent therapy on sacral pressure ulcer: Our first experience. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20:397-8

How to cite this URL:
Ünal A, Gülsen &, Altuğ F. Effectiveness of microcurrent therapy on sacral pressure ulcer: Our first experience. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Mar 24];20:397-8. Available from: http://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2017/20/3/397/201439

Dear Editor,

Physical activity or mobility limitation, incontinence, abnormalities in nutritional status, and altered consciousness are the most consistently reported risk factors for pressure ulcers. Pressure ulcer is a significant problem in all health settings, affecting approximately 10% of hospitalized and 5% of community-living patients.[1],[2] We would like to share our experience with microcurrent therapy (MCT) for sacral pressure ulcer.

A 41-year-old male patient was hospitalized because of subdural effusion in the right temporo-occipital lobe because of traffic accident. Initially, he had quadriplegia, balance, and coordination disorder. Glasgow coma score (GCS) totally was 5 (E:3, M:1, V:1) before the treatment and he had a shunt operation. After he stayed in intensive care unit (ICU) for 22 days, he was transferred to the Brain Surgery Department. The patient was included in physiotherapy and rehabilitation program. After the physical therapy program, GCS totally increased to 12 (E:4, M:6, V:2) and he had a minimally sitting balance. Only MCT was applied for the sacral pressure ulcer, excluding positioning and cleaning around wound. The size of pressure ulcer was measured as 5.1 × 6.8 cm before starting MCT.

Pressure sore began to develop in the second week of ICU and reached to stage II, progressively. Pressure ulcer was in stage II, when we started MCT. Pressure ulcer size of patient was recorded weekly. The pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH tool) Version 3.0 was used to assess the healing of ulcer. The PUSH model provides an accurate, simple, and clinically useful way to measure progress toward wound healing. Tool is a three-item scale with a possible total score range of 0-17. As scores decrease, healing is taking place. Assessment of the ulcer characteristics of surface area, exudate amount (none, light, moderate, and heavy), and surface appearance (necrotic tissue, slough, granulation tissue, epithelial tissue, and closed) will provide the clinician with an indication of the healing of pressure ulcers over time. Each parameter is scored, and the sum of the three yields a total wound status score. Observation of the changes in the direction and magnitude of the score over time indicates whether wound healing is occurring.

The patient has received 45 minutes MCT, 5 days a week for 6 weeks. The pain master microcurrent therapy device model no. 7500v6 with 21 mV, 42 μA current was used. The electrodes placed next to the ulcerated area [Figure 1]. Pressure ulcer healing scores are given in [Table 1], weekly. Significant acceleration of the healing process after microcurrent electrical stimulation has been widely documented. It was reported that electrical currents are present in a biological system and may promote repair and growth after injury.[3]
Figure 1: Application of micocurrent therapy (MCT) on sacral pressure ulcer.

Click here to view
Table 1: Pressure ulcer healing chart (PUSH scores)

Click here to view


MCT is a viable alternative treatment for patients with pressure ulcers. Although total PUSH score was 15, before treatment, ulcer was completely closed and total PUSH score decreased to 0, after 6 weeks [Figure 2]. Ullah performed a prospective, randomized, multicenter study assessing the effectiveness of MCT on pressure ulcers on 60 patients. They followed patients for 12 weeks and found that MCT has a significant effect on wound healing.[4] Our results are similar to those reported in the literature. Lessiani et al. conducted a monocentric, double-blind, randomized, prospective clinical trial on 33 patients with pressure ulcer. They divided patients into two groups and one group received MCT with a “Babytech BH®” device, other group received a sham therapy for 4 weeks. The patients were assessed at the beginning of treatment and at the end of the treatment with PUSH tool 3.0 and numeric rating scale (NRS). The ulcers healed in treatment group to a mean of 46% and control group a mean of 21%. The ulcer related pain, evaluated with NRS for pain scale, showed a decrease from a mean value of 53% in the treatment group and a mean of 22% in the control group.[5]
Figure 2: Weekly PUSH total scores by healing outcome.

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


These results indicate that there is an improvement in the healing of pressure ulcers with using MCT. We believe that further research in larger samples is needed to make about the effects of MCT on healing process of pressure ulcers and it can be added standard wound healing and care program. MCT is a treatment method, which has positive effect on the healing process of pressure ulcers. MCT is a preferable method, because it is easy to apply, low cost, and can be applied even at home, especially for wound healing.

Acknowledgements

None.

Financial Support and Sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Gorecki C, Brown JM, Nelson EA, Briggs M, Schoonhoven L, Dealey C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: A systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:1175-183.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kaltenthaler E, Whitfield MD, Walters SJ, Akehurst RL, Paisley S. UK, USA Canada: How do their pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data compare?. J Wound Care 2001;10:530-35.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kloth LC. Electrical stimulation for wound healing: A review of evidence from in vitro studies, animal experiment, and clinical trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2005;4:23-44.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ullah MO. A study to detect the efficacy of micro-current electrical therapy on decubitis wounds. J Med Sci 2007;7:1320-324.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Lessiani G, Galati V, Franzone G, Iodice P. Efficacy of modulated microcurrent stimulation in pressure ulcers treatment: A monocentric, prospective, double-blind, randomized study. J Nov Physiother 2014;4:224-doi:10.4172/2165-7025.1000224.  Back to cited text no. 5
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal