Comparison of 3-dimensional Wound Measurement With Laser-assisted and Hand Measurements: A Retrospective Chart Review.

Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise. PURPOSE: A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.

Wound odor: current methods of treatment and need for objective measures.

Chronic wounds are an enormous burden to society, costing billions of dollars annually in the USA alone. Despite the extensive research into methods to heal chronic wounds, many remain unhealed for months to years. There is a need to focus on patient reported outcomes to improve quality of life in patients with non-healing wounds. Wound odor has a significant impact on patient quality of life; however, relatively little information is available on the management of wound odor. We review the current data available on wound odor and discuss the need for standardized objective measures of odor to improve research quality. An independent search of the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted using combinations of the following words or phrases: "wounds," "chronic wounds," "diabetic ulcers," "venous leg ulcers (VLUs)," "malignant ulcers," "odor," "odour," "smell," "malodor," "artificial olfaction," "electronic nose," and "e-nose." Article references were also searched for significance. There are few overall studies on wound odor, and fewer randomized controlled trials. Current trials on odor have consistent weaknesses such as subjective measures and poor methodology. No single odor treatment modality has been demonstrated to be widely effective for wound odor or superior to other methods. Future research should incorporate objective measures of odor such as electronic noses into clinical trials.