Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byIsabel Caulder Modified about 1 year ago

1
BIO-FREQUENCY SPECTRUM RADIATION & WOUND HEALING J. M. Schramm, M.A., R. A. Hardesty, M.D., K. C. Oberg, M.D., Ph.D.

2
l PROBLEM & BACKGROUND l GOALS & OBJECTIVES l METHODS l RESULTS l DISCUSSION l CONCLUSIONS BFS & WOUND HEALING

3
CLINICAL PROBLEM l Compromised wound healing (bed sores, DM, smokers) l Electromagnetic radiation in wound healing u Microwave radiation in wound healing u Infrared radiation in wound healing l Bio-Frequency Spectrum (BFS) radiation

4
BACKGROUND: BFS & LIGHT SPECTRUM l Light frequency spectrum u Microwave u Infrared l BFS u Microwave u Infrared

5
BACKGROUND: BFS RADIATION TREATMENT l Reported results of BFS treatment for bed sores Reported results from C. Kun, et. al., 1995.

6
GOALS & OBJECTIVES l Controlled evaluation of wound healing u MacFarlane flap u tissue survival u Simple incision u breaking strength

7
METHODS: EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES l Anesthesia u Nembutal 2 cc/kg l Flap design u MacFarlane flap l Standardization u 4x10 cm template u Stapled incision

8
METHODS: EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES l Anesthesia u Nembutal 2 cc/kg l Incisional design u Midline incision l Standardization u 3 cm template u Clipped incision

9
METHODS: TREATMENT PROTOCOL l Control group u No treatment (Social cage 30 min. twice daily)

10
METHODS: TREATMENT PROTOCOL l Treatment groups u Infrared radiation u 30 min. twice daily u BFS radiation u 30 min. twice daily

11
RESULTS: DATA ANALYSIS l MacFarlane flap u Planimetric analysis u Surface area survivability

12
RESULTS: DATA ANALYSIS l Simple incision u Tensiometer analysis u Wound breaking strength

13
RESULTS: MACFARLANE FLAP l BFS treatment u 22.0% (+/- 11.8%) u p<.01 vs. controls u p=.16 vs. IR l IR treatment u 30.3% (+/- 10.0%) l Controls u 36.9% (+/- 9.6%)

14
RESULTS: SIMPLE INCISION l BFS treatment u 2.62N/mm 2 (+/-0.44N/mm 2 ) u p<.001 vs. controls u p<.10 vs. IR l IR treatment u 2.26N/mm 2 (+/-0.38N/mm 2 ) u p<.03 vs. controls l Controls u 1.73N/mm 2 (+/-0.47N/mm 2 )

15
DISCUSSION l BFS vs. Controls u Less flap necrosis u p<.01 u Greater wound breaking strength u p<.001 l BFS vs. IR u Trend towards less flap necrosis u p=.16 u Greater wound breaking strength u p<.01

16
CONCLUSIONS l BFS as efficient as IR in wound healing u Flap necrosis u Simple incision tensile strength l BFS trends u Appears to show greater wound healing than IR l Future research u Verify results u Expand to other models

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google