Integrating Point-of-Care Bacterial Fluorescence Imaging-Guided Care with Continued Wound Measurement for Enhanced Wound Area Reduction Monitoring
Publication Name
Diagnostics
Abstract
Aim: This prospective observational study investigated wound area reduction (WAR) outcomes in a complex wound population composed of non-healing acute and chronic wounds. The relationship between bacterial autofluorescence signals and WAR was investigated. Area measurements were collected both manually and digitally, and both methods were compared for accuracy. Methods: Twenty-six participants with 27 wounds of varying etiologies were observed twice weekly for two weeks. Digital wound measurement, wound bacterial status assessment, and targeted debridement were performed through a point-of-care fluorescence imaging device (MolecuLight® i: X, MolecuLight Inc, Toronto, Canada). The wound area reduction (WAR) rate was calculated using baseline and last visit measurements. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Fisher exact tests, the Wilcoxon signed rank test for method comparison, and ANOVA for bacterial subgroups, were applied as pertinent. Results: The overall average WAR was −3.80 cm2, or a decrease of 46.88% (manual measurement), and −2.62 cm2, or a 46.05% decrease (digital measurement via MolecuLight® device). There were no statistically significant differences between the WAR of acute and chronic wounds (p = 0.7877). A stepwise correlation between the WAR and bacterial status classification per fluorescence findings was observed, where persistent bacteria resulted in worse WAR outcomes. An overestimation of wound area by manual measurement was 23% on average. Conclusion: Fluorescence imaging signals were linked to WAR outcome and could be considered predictive. Wounds exhibiting bacterial loads that persisted at the end of the study period had worse WAR outcomes, while those for which management was able to effectively remove them demonstrated greater WAR. Manual measurement of the wound area consistently overestimated wound size when compared to digital measurement. However, if performed by the same operator, the overestimation was uniform enough that the WAR was calculated to be close to accurate. Notwithstanding, single wound measurements are likely to result in overestimation.
Open Access Status
This publication may be available as open access
Volume
14
Issue
1
Article Number
2
Funding Number
EPSPG/2016/159
Funding Sponsor
Irish Research Council