METHOD: Eligible patients with chronic wounds were enrolled between March and June 2016, from the Wound Care Unit, Hospital Kuala Lumpur in this consecutive case series. Standard wound care was performed with microcurrent as an adjunct therapy. Each patient was treated with an anti-inflammatory frequency, followed by a vasodilation frequency, while having their wounds cleansed during each dressing change. Patients were loaned a home-microcurrent device to treat themselves three times daily using a tissue repair frequency for four weeks.
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients with chronic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers, were recruited. During the four-week treatment period, all patients had a reduction in wound size, with 16 having complete wound closure. All 89 of the 100 patients who complained of pain, associated with their wound, experienced reduced pain scores, with 11 being pain-free at the end of the four-week period. There was significant reduction (p<0.001) in both mean pain score and mean wound area during the treatment period, as well as improvements in other parameters, such as reduction in inflammatory symptoms (leg swelling, foot stiffness), increased vasodilation (skin discolouration, leg heaviness, early morning erection, sensation), improvement in sleep quality, gait, and frequency of bowel movement. No adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study show there was significant reduction in wound area and pain score during the treatment period. The ease of use of microcurrent devices would advocate its use in accelerating wound healing.
Patients and methods: This single-blind, prospective, randomized-controlled study included a total of 20 patients (8 males, 12 females; mean age: 53.5±13.8; range, 31 to 82 years) with chronic neuropathic pain between January 2014 and June 2014. The patients were randomized to BEST (n=10) or placebo (n=10) group. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale, and serum cortisol levels were measured before and after treatment.
Results: There was no significant difference in the baseline demographics, diagnosis, and treatment modalities between the groups. Approximately 50% patients in the treatment group reported that the treatment was effective, compared to 30% in the placebo group. Pain score reduction after treatment in the BEST group was significant (p<0.05), while it was not significant in the placebo group (p=0.4). Cortisol levels significantly reduced only in the BEST group after treatment (p=0.013).
Conclusion: The BEST yields reduction in pain severity and cortisol levels. Based on these results, it seems to be effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain after a single treatment and may be more effective for long-term management.