IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0204453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preclosure spectroscopic differences between healed and dehisced traumatic wounds

Author

Listed:
  • Jason S Radowsky
  • Romon Neely
  • Jonathan A Forsberg
  • Felipe A Lisboa
  • Christopher J Dente
  • Eric A Elster
  • Nicole J Crane

Abstract

Background: The complexity and severity of traumatic wounds in military and civilian trauma demands improved wound assessment, before, during, and after treatment. Here, we explore the potential of 3 charge-coupled device (3CCD) imaging values to distinguish between traumatic wounds that heal following closure and those that fail. Previous studies demonstrate that normalized 3CCD imaging values exhibit a high correlation with oxygen saturation and allow for comparison of values between diverse clinical settings, including utilizing different equipment and lighting. Methods: We screened 119 patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and at Grady Memorial Hospital with at least one traumatic extremity wound of ≥ 75 cm2. We collected images of each wound during each débridement surgery for a total of 66 patients. An in-house written computer application selected a region of interest in the images, separated the pixel color values, calculated relative values, and normalized them. We followed patients until the enrolled wounds were surgically closed, quantifying the number of wounds that dehisced (defined as wound failure or infection requiring return to the operating room after closure) or healed. Results: Wound failure occurred in 20% (19 of 96) of traumatic wounds. Normalized intensity values for patients with wounds that healed successfully were, on average, significantly different from values for patients with wounds that failed (p ≤ 0.05). Simple thresholding models and partial least squares discriminant analysis models performed poorly. However, a hierarchical cluster analysis model created with 17 variables including 3CCD data, wound surface area, and time from injury predicts wound failure with 76.9% sensitivity, 76.5% specificity, 76.6% accuracy, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 10.8 (95% confidence interval: 2.6–45.9). Conclusions: Imaging using 3CCD technology may provide a non-invasive and cost-effective method of aiding surgeons in deciding if wounds are ready for closure and could potentially decrease the number of required débridements and hospital days. The process may be automated to provide real-time feedback in the operating room and clinic. The low cost and small size of the cameras makes this technology attractive for austere and shipboard environments where space and weight are at a premium.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason S Radowsky & Romon Neely & Jonathan A Forsberg & Felipe A Lisboa & Christopher J Dente & Eric A Elster & Nicole J Crane, 2018. "Preclosure spectroscopic differences between healed and dehisced traumatic wounds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204453
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204453
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204453&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0204453?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204453. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.