PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 76, No. 12, December 1996, pp. 1301-1311
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ter Riet, G
Right arrow Articles by Knipschild, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by ter Riet, G
Right arrow Articles by Knipschild, P

Research Report

A randomized clinical trial of ultrasound in the treatment of pressure ulcers

G ter Riet, AG Kessels, and P Knipschild

Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of ultrasound (US) therapy in the treatment of pressure ulcers as an adjunct to standardized treatment. SUBJECTS: Eighty-eight patients from 11 nursing homes and one hospital participated. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a US group (n = 45) or a sham US group (n = 43). METHODS: This was a multicenter placebo-controlled randomized trial. Wound survival, healing rates of wound surfaces, and changes on a clinical rating scale were measured over 12 weeks. RESULTS: Comparison of the 12-week cumulative incidences of wound closure showed that 40% (18/45) of ulcers in the US group and 44% (19/43) of ulcers in the sham US group were closed. An analysis in which between-group baseline differences and the days of wound closures were accounted for showed that the wound closure probability per unit of time (ie, closure rate) was almost equal in the two treatment groups (Cox proportional-hazards ratio of 1.08). Mean absolute healing rates were 0.18 and 0.31 cm2/wk in the US and sham US groups, respectively. Relative healing rates and healing speeds were similar in the two treatment groups. A panel scored slides of the ulcers with a report mark between 1 (bad) and 10 (excellent). The improvement was 0.71 and 0.46 points per week in the US and sham US groups, respectively. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: These data do not support the idea that US speeds up the healing of pressure ulcers.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
D. O Draper and V. J Robertson
Don't Disregard Ultrasound Yet-The Jury Is Still Out
Physical Therapy, February 1, 2002; 82(2): 190 - 191.
[Full Text]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
V. J Robertson and K. G Baker
A Review of Therapeutic Ultrasound: Effectiveness Studies
Physical Therapy, July 1, 2001; 81(7): 1339 - 1350.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
K. G Baker, V. J Robertson, and F. A Duck
A Review of Therapeutic Ultrasound: Biophysical Effects
Physical Therapy, July 1, 2001; 81(7): 1351 - 1358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
B. Klucinec, M. Scheidler, C. Denegar, E. Domholdt, and S. Burgess
Effectiveness of Wound Care Products in the Transmission of Acoustic Energy
Physical Therapy, May 1, 2000; 80(5): 469 - 476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Physical Therapy Association.