Pilot study to evaluate a novel three-dimensional wound measurement device

Abstract

As the burden of diabetes continues to grow and treatment standards require careful tracking of wound progress, clinicians increasingly need to rely on technological improvements in wound measurement technologies to track the progress of their treatments. This study aims to determine the accuracy of a new three-dimensional wound measurement (3DWM) device against laser-assisted wound measurement (LAWM) devices and traditional methods of wound measurement. Using several wound models, we demonstrate that the 3DWM device measures wound area, depth and volume similarly to the other methods tested. This is especially apparent when changes in wound measurements were compared between the two devices. Differences between the two technologies were apparent when analysing wound measurement time and measurement repeatability. There was a significantly lower incidence of error in measurements between the 3DWM device and the LAWM device. Finally, the measurement time was significantly faster with the 3DWM device compared to the LAWM device. Together, these data demonstrate that the 3DWM device provides an accurate and reproducible method for measuring changes in wound healing similar to other available technologies. Further, the use of the 3DWM device provides a faster and more consistent measurement, which is critical for clinical application and use.

Keywords: Three-dimensional; Wound healing; Wound measurement; Wound monitoring; Wound tool.

© 2015 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1

Wound models constructed from Play‐Doh®; (A) Static wound models; (B) Example of healing wound model using different colors for intact skin and wound tissue.

Figure 2

Wound measurements of (A) area, (B) volume, (C) average depth and (D) max depth using laser‐assisted wound measurement (LAWM), three‐dimensional wound measurement (3DWM) and traditional measurements. P > 0·05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical difference between 3DWM and LAWM is indicated by * and between 3DWM or LAWM and traditional measurement methods by #.

Figure 3

Wound measurements over time (left) and change in wound measurements over time as a percent of Day 0 for 2 wound models measured using laser‐assisted wound measurement (LAWM) and three‐dimensional wound measurement (3DWM) devices; P > 0·05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical difference between 3DWM and LAWM is indicated by *.

Figure 4

Average wound measurement time for three independent wound models as measured by laser‐assisted wound measurement (LAWM) and three‐dimensional wound measurement (3DWM); P > 0·05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical difference between 3DWM and LAWM is indicated by * and between 3DWM or LAWM and traditional measurement methods by #.

Figure 5

Average error (standard error of the mean [SEM]) between measurements for area, volume, average depth and maximum depth as measured by laser‐assisted wound measurement (LAWM) and three‐dimensional wound measurement (3DWM) devices; P > 0·05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical difference between 3DWM and LAWM is indicated by *.