A comparison of wound area measurement techniques: visitrak versus photography
To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non-wound-contact method is desirable. The areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques-V...
Saved in:
Published in | Eplasty Vol. 11; p. e18 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Open Science Company, LLC
18.04.2011
|
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non-wound-contact method is desirable.
The areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques-Visitrak and photography combined with ImageJ. The wounds were photographed with a ruler included in the photographic frame to allow ImageJ calibration. The images were uploaded to a computer and opened with ImageJ. The wound outline was defined from the photographic image using a digital pad, and the ImageJ software calculated the wound area. The Visitrak method involved a 2-layered transparent Visitrak film placed on the wound and the outline traced onto the film. The top layer containing the tracing was retraced onto the Visitrak digital pad using the Visitrak pen and the software calculated the wound area.
The average wound area using the photographic method was 52.264 cm(2) and using Visitrak was 51.703 cm(2). The mean difference in wound area was 0.560 cm(2). Using a 2-tailed paired T test, the T statistic was 1.285 and the value .206, indicating no statistical difference between the two methods. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.971.
The photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak for measuring wound area, with no statistical difference in wound area measurement demonstrated during this study. The photographic method is a more appropriate technique for clean and uncontaminated wounds, as contact with the wound bed is avoided. |
---|---|
AbstractList | OBJECTIVETo investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non-wound-contact method is desirable. METHODSThe areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques-Visitrak and photography combined with ImageJ. The wounds were photographed with a ruler included in the photographic frame to allow ImageJ calibration. The images were uploaded to a computer and opened with ImageJ. The wound outline was defined from the photographic image using a digital pad, and the ImageJ software calculated the wound area. The Visitrak method involved a 2-layered transparent Visitrak film placed on the wound and the outline traced onto the film. The top layer containing the tracing was retraced onto the Visitrak digital pad using the Visitrak pen and the software calculated the wound area. RESULTSThe average wound area using the photographic method was 52.264 cm(2) and using Visitrak was 51.703 cm(2). The mean difference in wound area was 0.560 cm(2). Using a 2-tailed paired T test, the T statistic was 1.285 and the value .206, indicating no statistical difference between the two methods. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.971. CONCLUSIONSThe photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak for measuring wound area, with no statistical difference in wound area measurement demonstrated during this study. The photographic method is a more appropriate technique for clean and uncontaminated wounds, as contact with the wound bed is avoided. To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non-wound-contact method is desirable. The areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques-Visitrak and photography combined with ImageJ. The wounds were photographed with a ruler included in the photographic frame to allow ImageJ calibration. The images were uploaded to a computer and opened with ImageJ. The wound outline was defined from the photographic image using a digital pad, and the ImageJ software calculated the wound area. The Visitrak method involved a 2-layered transparent Visitrak film placed on the wound and the outline traced onto the film. The top layer containing the tracing was retraced onto the Visitrak digital pad using the Visitrak pen and the software calculated the wound area. The average wound area using the photographic method was 52.264 cm(2) and using Visitrak was 51.703 cm(2). The mean difference in wound area was 0.560 cm(2). Using a 2-tailed paired T test, the T statistic was 1.285 and the value .206, indicating no statistical difference between the two methods. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.971. The photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak for measuring wound area, with no statistical difference in wound area measurement demonstrated during this study. The photographic method is a more appropriate technique for clean and uncontaminated wounds, as contact with the wound bed is avoided. Objective: To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non–wound-contact method is desirable. Methods: The areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques—Visitrak and photography combined with ImageJ. The wounds were photographed with a ruler included in the photographic frame to allow ImageJ calibration. The images were uploaded to a computer and opened with ImageJ. The wound outline was defined from the photographic image using a digital pad, and the ImageJ software calculated the wound area. The Visitrak method involved a 2-layered transparent Visitrak film placed on the wound and the outline traced onto the film. The top layer containing the tracing was retraced onto the Visitrak digital pad using the Visitrak pen and the software calculated the wound area. Results: The average wound area using the photographic method was 52.264 cm 2 and using Visitrak was 51.703 cm 2 . The mean difference in wound area was 0.560 cm 2 . Using a 2-tailed paired T test, the T statistic was 1.285 and the value .206, indicating no statistical difference between the two methods. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.971. Conclusions: The photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak for measuring wound area, with no statistical difference in wound area measurement demonstrated during this study. The photographic method is a more appropriate technique for clean and uncontaminated wounds, as contact with the wound bed is avoided. |
Author | Dearman, Bronwyn Chang, Angela Christine Greenwood, John Edward |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Angela Christine surname: Chang fullname: Chang, Angela Christine – sequence: 2 givenname: Bronwyn surname: Dearman fullname: Dearman, Bronwyn – sequence: 3 givenname: John Edward surname: Greenwood fullname: Greenwood, John Edward |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21559060$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNpVkEtLxDAUhYMozkP_gmTnqpA0bR4uhGHwBYNudF3S5nYabZOatCPz7604iq4Ol3v4zr1ngY6dd3CE5lQxkeSCqhlaxPhKCCc8Y6doltI8V9M0R48rXPmu18FG77Cv8YcfncE6gMYd6DgG6MANeICqcfZ9hHiFdzbaIeg3vIMQx4j7xg9-G3Tf7M_QSa3bCOcHXaKX25vn9X2yebp7WK82SU8p4QkoWptM8pwbqKQqWc2MgFRWAuqcCgOMloSVNZPMMFKqXBmepqlgCjKjc8GW6Pqb249lB6aaTgy6LfpgOx32hde2-L9xtim2flcwIongfAJcHgDBf301FJ2NFbStduDHWEjO00zJjEzOi79Rvxk_HbJPoWZwwQ |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) 2011 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) 2011 |
DBID | NPM 7X8 5PM |
DatabaseName | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic PubMed |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
EISSN | 1937-5719 |
EndPage | e18 |
ExternalDocumentID | 21559060 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | 29G 2WC 53G 5GY 5VS ABDBF ADBBV ADRAZ ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS BAWUL C1A DIK E3Z ESX F5P GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HYE KQ8 M48 M~E NPM O5R O5S OK1 RNS RPM TR2 TUS 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-p1106-e91fd48656dec89b3f3d7e28c7ef517de31b03bf383d30b959d6222739e4da573 |
IEDL.DBID | RPM |
IngestDate | Tue Apr 09 21:53:52 EDT 2024 Fri Apr 12 10:43:02 EDT 2024 Fri Feb 23 03:45:24 EST 2024 |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | false |
IsScholarly | true |
Language | English |
License | This is an open-access article whereby the authors retain copyright of the work. The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-p1106-e91fd48656dec89b3f3d7e28c7ef517de31b03bf383d30b959d6222739e4da573 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080766/ |
PMID | 21559060 |
PQID | 866249840 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3080766 proquest_miscellaneous_866249840 pubmed_primary_21559060 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2011-Apr-18 20110418 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2011-04-18 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2011 text: 2011-Apr-18 day: 18 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | Eplasty |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Eplasty |
PublicationYear | 2011 |
Publisher | Open Science Company, LLC |
Publisher_xml | – name: Open Science Company, LLC |
SSID | ssj0060643 |
Score | 1.8067405 |
Snippet | To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases... OBJECTIVETo investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area... Objective: To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | e18 |
Title | A comparison of wound area measurement techniques: visitrak versus photography |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21559060 https://search.proquest.com/docview/866249840 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC3080766 |
Volume | 11 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV07b8IwELaAqUvVqi_6QB66BhIcO3Y3hIpQpSAGaNkiP0XUkqAG_n_tPGhh7JyLLN1Zvu87n78D4NmXTGKFqYcZJ16ItfRoGFAPmTDgQymY5O5GN56R6TJ8W-FVC-DmLUzZtC9F2s--Nv0sXZe9lduNHDR9YoN5PEYW5kSEDNqgbdNvQ9Gr45e4HFtK_Fqs7NfKkyfI8bQB8k9GmVyA8xoKwlG15CVo6ewKzEZwfBgNCHMDP9zcI2ukOYx_63lw0WivFi_wPS1Su8AndMWvfQHn63xXK1Ffg-XkdTGeevXMA29rEzHxNAuMCqlFWUpLygQySEV6SGWkDQ4ipVEgfCSMJZYK-YJhpoh7zoqYDhXHEboBnSzP9B2AggWOL3GBBLIkwwgVRNz4roYwtEHhXQAbzyR2T7mLAp7pfF8klFgLZqlfF9xWjkq2lfZF0ri1C6IjFx4MnFz18RcbxVK2uo7a_b__fABnVUU39AL6CDq7771-spBgJ3qgHYe0V26EH4a1vX0 |
link.rule.ids | 230,314,727,780,784,885,53791,53793 |
linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV07T8MwELZKGWBBIF7l6YE1bVzHccxWVVQFmqpDC90ivyIiaFKR9v9j51FoR-ZcZOnO8n3f-fwdAA-uZJIoEjiEcd_xiJZO4KHAwbGHeFcKJrm90Q3H_nDmvczJvAFI_RamaNqXImmnX4t2mnwUvZXLhezUfWKdSdjHBuZQ3-_sgX2CKUM1SS8PYN9m2ULk16Blt9Ke3MGOuy2Qf3LK4BgcVWAQ9spFT0BDp6dg3IP9zXBAmMXw3U4-Mkaaw_C3ogentfpq_gjfkjwxC3xCW_5a53Dyka0qLeozMBs8TftDp5p64CxNKvYdzVCsvMDgLKVlwASOsaK6G0iqY4Ko0hgJF4vYUEuFXcEIU7590IqZ9hQnFJ-DZpql-hJAwZBlTFxggQ3NiIVClMeurSJ0TVh4C8DaM5HZVfaqgKc6W-dR4BsLZshfC1yUjoqWpfpFVLu1BeiWCzcGVrB6-4uJYyFcXcXt6t9_3oOD4TQcRaPn8es1OCzru56DghvQXH2v9a0BCCtxV2yHHy_Yv_g |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LT8JAEN4oJsaL0fjC5x68Flq2u-16IyjBB4QDKLdmn6FR2sbC_3e3DwWOnjvNJjOTzvfNTr8B4N4VVGCJQwdTRhwfK-GEvhc6SPse6whOBbM3usMRGUz9lxmera36Kob2BY9bydeilcTzYrYyW4h2PSfWHg97yMCcgJB2JnV7F-xhZJKsJurlR5jYSlsI_RrE7Fb6k1v4cXsMcq2u9I_AYQUIYbc8-BjsqOQEjLqw97sgEKYaftjtR8ZIMTj86-rBSa3Amj_A9ziPzQGf0LbAVjkcz9NlpUd9Cqb9p0lv4FSbD5zMlGPiKOpp6YcGa0klQsqRRjJQnVAESmMvkAp53EVcG3opkcspppLYn1oRVb5kOEBnoJGkiboAkFPPsibGEUeGamguvYBp13YSOiY0rAlg7ZnIZJa9LmCJSld5FBJjQQ0BbILz0lFRVipgRLVbmyDYcOGvgRWt3nxiYlmIV1exu_z3m3dgf_zYj96eR69X4KBs8fqOF16DxvJ7pW4MRljy2yIbfgDwNMEL |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+comparison+of+wound+area+measurement+techniques%3A+visitrak+versus+photography&rft.jtitle=Eplasty&rft.au=Chang%2C+Angela+Christine&rft.au=Dearman%2C+Bronwyn&rft.au=Greenwood%2C+John+Edward&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.eissn=1937-5719&rft.volume=11&rft.spage=e18&rft.epage=e18&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |