Article

Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES)
promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are
not available. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus
cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of Category II-IV pressure ulcers (PrUs).
Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study.
Setting: Three
nursing and care centers. Patients: Sixty-three participants with PrUs were
randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: N = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD
8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: N = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and
a placebo ES group (PG: N = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24). Intervention: All
patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed
current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 mus; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 muC/s) for 50
minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received,
respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on
a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the
return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU.
Measurements: Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks
of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week
6. Results: Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence
interval [CI] 70.06-94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51-88.04). These
reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI
23.60-57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different
regarding treatment results. Limitations: The time of treatment proved
insufficient for PrUs to close. Conclusions: Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC
similarly reduced the area of Category II-IV PrUs.

Langue : ANGLAIS