Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA;
Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 3Department of Medicine, Diabetic Foot and
Wound Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar; 4Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown
University, Washington, DC, USA
2
Background: There are several applications of electrical stimulation described in medical literature to
accelerate wound healing and improve cutaneous perfusion. This is a simple technique that could be
incorporated as an adjunctive therapy in plastic surgery. The objective of this review was to evaluate the
results of randomized clinical trials that use electrical stimulation for wound healing.
Method: We identified 21 randomized clinical trials that used electrical stimulation for wound healing. We did
not include five studies with treatment groups with less than eight subjects.
Results: Electrical stimulation was associated with faster wound area reduction or a higher proportion of
wounds that healed in 14 out of 16 wound randomized clinical trials. The type of electrical stimulation,
waveform, and duration of therapy vary in the literature.
Conclusion: Electrical stimulation has been shown to accelerate wound healing and increase cutaneous
perfusion in human studies. Electrical stimulation is an adjunctive therapy that is underutilized in plastic
surgery and could improve flap and graft survival, accelerate postoperative recovery, and decrease necrosis
following foot reconstruction.
Keywords: diabetic foot ulcer; electric stimulation therapy; treatment outcome; perfusion; infection
Received: 9 July 2013; Revised: 11 August 2013; Accepted: 21 August 2013; Published: 16 September 2013
lectrical stimulation may offer a unique treatment option to heal complicated and recalcitrant
wounds, improve flap and graft survival, and even
improve surgery results. Electrical stimulation has been
suggested to reduce infection, improve cellular immunity,
increase perfusion, and accelerate wound healing (1).
Similar to many medical devices, electrical stimulation
has a history of genuine medical application as well as
quackery. In ancient Greece and Rome, electric eels were
used in footbaths to treat pain and improve blood
circulation (2). In the 17th century, gold leaf was used to
prevent scarring from small pox (3). Later on, gold leaves
were applied directly to wounds to improve wound healing
(4, 5). John Wesley, an 18th-century electrotherapist, listed
cases of pain relief following electrical stimulation for
suspected cases of angina, headaches, and pains in the feet
(6). Currently, there is a substantial body of work that
supports the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for
wound healing. Treatment is safe, effective, and well
Diabetic Foot & Ankle 2013. # 2013 Gaurav Thakral et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Diabetic Foot & Ankle 2013, 4: 22081 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/dfa.v4i0.22081
2
(page number not for citation purpose)
Electrical stimulation
Table 1. Perfusion randomized controlled trial (RCT) organized by the type of ulcer
Treatment specification:
Author
Gilcreast
(45)
Pathology of
Duration of
interest
treatment
duration, frequency
and high-risk
pulse duration
Span: 1 day
Population
Treatment n "132
Outcome
TcpO2 significant improvement in
27% of subjects (pB0.05). No
population using
HPVC
Clover
(35)
Perfusion
1 hour, TID,
in stable
for 6 weeks
claudication
Span: 6 weeks
1.0 V, 10 mA, 8 Hz
Treatment n "24,
Control: n"12
using TENS
Cramp
(36)
Perfusion in
Once, 15 min
health humans
using TENS
Span: 1 day
200 ms
Low frequency 4 Hz,
200 ms
Forst (46)
Perfusion in
Once, 3 min
0.2 ms at 4 cycles/s
neuropathic
Span: 1 day
patients using
TENS
Peters
(44)
NP-/RP#n"14,
TcpO2 NS.
Laser Doppler blood flow increased
with ES in all groups at the dorsum
NP$/RP$n"21,
Non-diabetic n"21
Perfusion in
60 min, QID,
50 V, 100 twin-peak
diabetics using
DC
for 1 day
Span: 2 days
monophasic pps
increments in
n"24
stimuli per
minute (spm)
*Single-blind RCT; **double-blind RCT; NS, not stated; pps: pulse per second.
4
(page number not for citation purpose)
Electrical stimulation
Pathology
Duration of
of interest
treatment
duration, frequency
Population
Treatment n"20
for 12 weeks
Sham** n "20
Outcome
Wound healing ES 65% vs. sham 35%
p"0.058.
Wound area reduction ES 86% vs. sham 71%
p!0.05.
standby cycles
Adunsky
(56)
Pressure
20 min, TID, 7
NS
Treatment n"19
Sham** n "19
Span: 8 weeks
Griffin (57)
Pressure
60 min, daily,
Treatment n"8
ulcers ion
for 20
Sham* n"9
HVPC
days
Span: 20 days
Houghton
(58)
Pressure
60 min, TID, for 50!150 V. 50 ms pulses. Treatment n"16, Wound healing ES 38% vs. control 28%
p!0.05.
20-min intervals at 100 Sham* n"18
p".048.
weekly
Salzberg
Pressure
30 min, BID, 7
Radio frequency of
Treatment n"9
(59)
ulcers in
days a week,
Sham** n "10
293!975 W
Wood (60)
Pressure
Three time a
ulcer using
week, for 8
DC.
weeks.
data.
Treatment n"41
Shams** n "30
pB0.0001.
Wound area reduction NS.
Span: 8 weeks
Ieran (61)
Venous
3!4 hours,
Treatment n"18
pulse width
Sham** n "19
week, for 90
p!0.05.
days.
Span: 90 days
Lundeberg Venous
20 min, BID, for 80 Hz, 1-ms pulse
(62)
ulcers using 12 weeks.
width. Polarity was
AC
Treatment n"24
Sham* n"27
treatment
Venous
3 hours, daily, 7 0.06 mV/cm. The signal Treatment n"18, Wound healing NS.
PEMF
#, $) of 3.5-ms width
for 8 weeks.
Sham** n "13
Span: 8 weeks
Citation: Diabetic Foot & Ankle 2013, 4: 22081 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/dfa.v4i0.22081
Table 2 (Continued)
Author
Pathology
Duration of
Treatment specification;
voltage, current, phase
of interest
treatment
duration, frequency
Outcome
25 min, 5 days
a week,
Maximum impulse
Treatment n"10
amplitude preset to the Control n"10
healing
3 weeks
value according to
(25%) (pB0.005).
using
Span: 3 weeks
patients sensitivity
FREMS
Carley (8)
Population
Mixed
threshold
2 hours, BID,
300!500 mA for
for 5 weeks.
500!700 mA for
pB0.01.
Span: 5 weeks
denervated skin
30!110 mA/cm2
Feedar
(53)
pulsed DC
for 4 weeks.
pB0.02.
Span: 4 weeks
Treatment n"26
Sham** n "24
Mixed
Treatment n"14
Sham** n "13
4 weeks.
pB0.05.
Span: 4 weeks
Jankovic
(64)
Mixed
40 min, daily,
300 V, 1,000 Hz, 10!40 Treatment n"20
ulcers using 5 days a week, ms, 100!170mA
Control n"15
FREMS
pB0.001.
for 3 weeks
Span: 3 weeks
Lawson
(65)
Mixed
30 min, three
wounds
times a week,
using DC
for 4 weeks
mA
n "9
Span: 4 weeks
for 35 days.
amplitude 92,400 nT
Span: 35 days
Treatment n"18
Sham** n "15
*Single-blind RCT; **double-blind RCT; NS, not stated; pps, pulse per second; NP, neuropathy; RP, retinopathy.
6
(page number not for citation purpose)
Study limitations
There are several limitations to this review. There were
several different applications of electrical stimulation
Electrical stimulation
(PEMF, TENS, high voltage galvanic stimulation), different doses, and durations of therapy that were studied and
reported. In addition, many of the studies were small and
may have been underpowered. And unlike industrysponsored phase-three clinical trials, many studies looked
at percent change in wound area at 4!6 weeks as the
primary outcome rather than complete wound healing at
12 or 20 weeks. Despite variations in the type of current,
duration, and dosing of electrical stimulation, the majority of trials showed a significant improvement in
wound area reduction or wound healing compared to
the standard of care or sham therapy (Table 2) as well as
improved local perfusion (Table 1). In fact, these factors
were different in all 16 RCTs.
Conclusion
There are many opportunities to improve clinical outcomes with electrical stimulation. In many ways, electrical
stimulation appears to be a perfect adjunctive therapy.
First, no device-related complications or adverse effects
have been reported in the existing literature. The therapy
is safe and easy to use. Second, as electrical stimulation
decreases bacterial infection, increases local perfusion,
and accelerates wound healing, it addresses these three
pivotal factors in surgical wound complications. Electrical
stimulation offers a unique treatment option to heal
complicated and recalcitrant wounds, improve flap, replantation and graft survival, and even improve surgery
results. This is an approach that can be applied in the
operating room and used throughout the recovery process.
Electrical stimulation is a simple, inexpensive intervention
to improve surgical wound healing. Rigorous clinical
trials are needed to help understand the dosing, timing,
and type of electrical stimulation to be used.
References
1. Szuminsky NJ, Albers AC, Unger P, Eddy JG. Effect of narrow,
pulsed high voltages on bacterial viability. Phys Ther 1994; 74:
660!7.
2. Garrison FH. An introduction to the history of medicine.
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1921.
3. Robinson K. Digbys receipts. Ann Med Hist 1925; 7: 216!9.
4. Kanof NM. Gold leaf in the treatment of cutaneous ulcers.
J Invest Dermatol 1964; 43: 441!2.
5. Wolf M, Wheeler PC, Wolcott LE. Gold-leaf treatment of
ischemic skin ulcers. JAMA 1966; 196: 693!6.
6. Stillings D. A survey of the history of electrical stimulation for
pain to 1900. Med Instrum 1975; 9: 255!9.
7. Kloth LC, Feedar JA. Acceleration of wound healing with
high voltage, monophasic, pulsed current. Phys Ther 1988; 68:
503!8.
30. Rowley BA, McKenna JM, Chase GR, Wolcott LE. The
influence of electrical current on an infecting microorganism
in wounds. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1974; 238: 543!51.
31. Kloth LC. Electrical stimulation for wound healing: a review
of evidence from in vitro studies, animal experiments, and
clinical trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2005; 4: 23!44.
32. Rowley BA. Electrical current effects on E. coli growth rates.
Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1972; 139: 929!34.
33. Barranco SD, Spadaro JA, Berger TJ, Becker RO. In vitro
effect of weak direct current on Staphylococcus aureus.
Clin Orthop Relat Res 1974; 100: 250!5.
34. Ong PC, Laatsch LJ, Kloth LC. Antibacterial effects of a silver
electrode carrying microamperage direct current in vitro.
J Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 6: 14!18.
35. Clover AJ, McCarthy MJ, Hodgkinson K, Bell PR, Brindle NP.
Noninvasive augmentation of microvessel number in patients
with peripheral vascular disease. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38:
1309!12.
36. Cramp AF, Gilsenan C, Lowe AS, Walsh DM. The effect
of high- and low-frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve
stimulation upon cutaneous blood flow and skin temperature
in healthy subjects. Clin Physiol 2000; 20: 150!7.
37. Velmahos GC, Petrone P, Chan LS, Hanks SE, Brown CV,
Demetriades D. Electrostimulation for the prevention of deep
venous thrombosis in patients with major trauma: a prospective
randomized study. Surgery 2005; 137: 493!8.
38. Doran FS, Drury M, Sivyer A. A simple way to combat the
venous stasis which occurs in the lower limbs during surgical
operations. Br J Surg 1964; 51: 486!92.
39. Doran FS, White HM. A demonstration that the risk of
postoperative deep venous thrombosis is reduced by stimulating
the calf muscles electrically during the operation. Br J Surg
1967; 54: 686!9.
40. Doran FS, White M, Drury M. A clinical trial designed to test
the relative value of two simple methods of reducing the risk of
venous stasis in the lower limbs during surgical operations, the
danger of thrombosis, and a subsequent pulmonary embolus,
with a survey of the problem. Br J Surg 1970; 57: 20!30.
41. Griffin M, Nicolaides AN, Bond D, Geroulakos G, Kalodiki E.
The efficacy of a new stimulation technology to increase venous
flow and prevent venous stasis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;
40: 766!71.
42. Kanno S, Oda N, Abe M, Saito S, Hori K, Handa Y, et al.
Establishment of a simple and practical procedure applicable
to therapeutic angiogenesis. Circulation 1999; 99: 2682!7.
43. McDowell BC, McElduff C, Lowe AS, Walsh DM, Baxter GD.
The effect of high- and low-frequency H-wave therapy upon
skin blood perfusion: evidence of frequency-specific effects.
Clin Physiol 1999; 19: 450!7.
44. Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Bosma J,
Stacpoole-Shea S, Lavery LA. The benefit of electrical stimulation to enhance perfusion in persons with diabetes mellitus.
J Foot Ankle Surg 1998; 37: 396!400; discussion 47!8.
45. Gilcreast DM, Stotts NA, Froelicher ES, Baker LL, Moss KM.
Effect of electrical stimulation on foot skin perfusion in
persons with or at risk for diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Repair
Regen 1998; 6: 434!41.
46. Forst T, Pfutzner A, Bauersachs R, Arin M, Bach B,
Biehlmaier H, et al. Comparison of the microvascular response
to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and postocclusive
ischemia in the diabetic foot. J Diabetes Complications 1997;
11: 291!7.
47. Goldman R, Rosen M, Brewley B, Golden M. Electrotherapy
promotes healing and microcirculation of infrapopliteal
8
(page number not for citation purpose)
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Electrical stimulation
on chronic leg ulcer size and appearance. Phys Ther 2003; 83:
17!28.
64. Jankovic A, Binic I. Frequency rhythmic electrical modulation
system in the treatment of chronic painful leg ulcers. Arch
Dermatol Res 2008; 300: 377!83.
65. Lawson D, Petrofsky JS. A randomized control study on the
effect of biphasic electrical stimulation in a warm room on skin
blood flow and healing rates in chronic wounds of patients with
and without diabetes. Med Sci Monit 2007; 13: CR258!63.
*Lawrence A. Lavery
Department of Plastic Surgery
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
5323 Harry Hines Blvd
Dallas, TX 75390, USA
Tel: 214-648-3111
Email: Larry.Lavery@utsouthwestern.edu