Digital planimetry results in more accurate wound measurements: A comparison to standard ruler measurements

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 799-802

  Rogers, Lee C ^a   Bevilacqua, Nicholas J ^b   Armstrong, David G ^c   Andros, George ^a  

^a Valley Presbyterian Hospital   (United States)

^b North Jersey Orthopaedic Specialists   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Planimetry; Silhouette; Ulcer; Wound measurement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIABETIC FOOT; HUMAN; INJURY; LEG ULCER; PATHOLOGY; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SKIN; SKIN ULCER; STANDARD; WOUND HEALING;

DIABETES COMPLICATIONS; DIABETIC FOOT; HUMANS; LEG ULCER; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SKIN; SKIN ULCER; WOUND HEALING; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 78049490993     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19322968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/193229681000400405     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Gelfand JM, Hoffstad O, Margolis DJ. Surrogate endpoints for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;119(6):1420-5.
2. Sheehan P, Jones P, Caselli A, Giurini JM, Veves A. Percent change in wound area of diabetic foot ulcers over a 4-week period is a robust predictor of complete healing in a 12-week prospective trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(6):1879-82.
3. Lavery LA, Barnes SA, Keith MS, Seaman JW Jr, Armstrong DG. Prediction of healing for postoperative diabetic foot wounds based on early wound area progression. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(1):26-9.
4. Majeske C. Reliability of wound surface area measurements. Phys Ther. 1992;72(2):138-41.
5. Haghpanah S, Bogie K, Wang X, Banks PG, Ho CH. Reliability of electronic versus manual wound measurement techniques. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(10):1396-402.
6. Ahn C, Salcido RS. Advances in wound photography and assessment methods. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;21(2):85-93.
7. Gethin G, Cowman S. Wound measurement comparing the use of acetate tracings and Visitrak digital planimetry. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(4):422-7.
8. Rajbhandari SM, Harris ND, Sutton M, Lockett C, Eaton S, Gadour M, Tesfaye S, Ward JD. Digital imaging: an accurate and easy method of measuring foot ulcers. Diabet Med. 1999;16(4):339-42.
9. Bulstrode CJ, Goode AW, Scott PJ. Stereophotogrammetry for measuring rates of cutaneous healing: a comparison with conventional techniques. Clin Sci (Lond). 1986;71(4):437-43.
10. Wunderlich RP, Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Reliability of digital videometry and acetate tracing in measuring the surface area of cutaneous wounds. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;49(2-3):87-92.
11. Marjanovic D, Dugdale RE, Vowden P, Vowden KR. Measurement of the volume of a leg ulcer using a laser scanner. Physiol Meas. 1998;19(4):535-43.
12. Nixon M, Davey B, Fright R, McCallum B, Preddey J, Kieser D. Comparison between two methods of wound measurement on wound models: manual methods and Silhouette, a hand-held electronic wound measurement and documentation device. Presented at: 13th National District Nursing Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
13. Hammond C, Randles J, Lewis D, Roake J, Nixon M, McCallum B, Davey B. Evaluation of a hand held, electronic wound measurement device and documentation device in clincal practice. Presented at: 20th Symposium on Advanced Wound Care, Tampa, Florida.
14. Langemo D, Anderson J, Hanson D, Hunter S, Thompson P. Measuring wound length, width, and area: which technique? Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008;21(1):42-5.
15. Romanelli M, Dini V, Rogers L, Hammond C, Nixon M. Clinical evaluation of a wound measurement and documentation system. Wounds. 2008;20(9):256-64.
16. Falanga V. Measurements in wound healing. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2008;7(1):9-11.
17. Armstrong DG. Guest Editorial: time and place-shifting the physical examination: technologies are converging to allow more detailed evaluations of the foot and wound. Int Wound J. 2007;4(4):289-90.