{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03449841125737631, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02541988197911938, 'mean_word_length': 4.6368286445012785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Decreasing Pain and Increasing the Rate of Chronic Wound Closure With the Use of a Noninvasive Bioelectronic Medical Device: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION
Chronic wounds are a source of significant morbidity. Medical and scientific efforts are ongoing to further therapeutic modalities improving pain scores and augmenting healing while decreasing complications and reducing the social and economic burden of wounds. Electrical current therapy, or electrical stimulation (ES), has been shown to decrease and modulate both acute and chronic pain; however, understanding of the role of ES in wound closure is limited.


OBJECTIVE
This single-center case series reports use of a topical ultrahigh frequency ES (UHF-ES) therapy to decrease wound pain and improve the rate of closure in difficult-to-heal wounds in 9 patients.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Initially, each patient underwent individualized care of their chronic wounds for a minimum of 8 weeks, after which adjunct UHF-ES therapy was provided 3 times per week for an average of 8 additional weeks. Wound size and pain level were documented for the period before and after UHF-ES.


RESULTS
Overall, pain improved across the 9 patients. One patient was insensate, and another experienced an increase in pain during treatment. Of the 8 patients with sensation, 7 (88%) experienced a decrease in wound pain, with an average 3.4-point reduction per 10-point visual analog scale. Average pain level was 4.14 before treatment and 0.71 after. The average wound size was 5.70 cm2 ± 5.23 cm2 approximately 8 weeks before the initiation of treatment, 4.34 cm2 ± 4.51 cm2 at the time of treatment, and 1.2 cm2 ± 1.75 cm2 at the conclusion of treatment. The average percentage of wound closure with individualized wound care alone was 23.77%, which increased to 64.58% with the addition of UHF-ES therapy. The weekly percentage of wound closure was statistically significant (P = .0027) between the 2 treatment methods.


CONCLUSIONS
While additional research into the use of ES (namely, UHF-ES in wound healing) is warranted, the device reported herein may be an effective, safe, and low-cost adjunct treatment in the care of chronic, difficult-to-heal wounds.