Distance Electro Therapy Versus Low Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Pressure Ulcer: Which is Safer and More Effective?

Purpose: Tens of thousands of individuals worldwide suffer from pressure ulcers (PUs), which are a global health hazard with highly cost management, so the trial targeted to compare between Distance Electro Therapy (DE) and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) efficacy in PU management in the form of minimizing wound surface area and volume. Materials and Methods: 60 patients with pressure ulcers were recruited in this trial and subdivided at random to 3 equal groups. DE Group: received DE (Frequency: 72 Hz. Impulse: 340 microseconds. Time: 3000 microseconds. Intensity: 100%, for 20 min) and medical care. PEMF group: received Low intensity PEMF (Frequency: 10 Hz, Intensity: 60%, no thermal effect, for 20 min) and medical care. Control group: received medical care only. The treatment sessions were three times per week for 6 weeks. WoundDesk software application, and sterile gel injection were the assessment methods of wound surface area and volume respectively. All measurements were collected before the beginning of the study, and at 6th week of the trial termination.Results: All groups reported improvement in measured variables, however more reduction of wound surface area and volume were reported in DE group compared to the other groups (p value < 0.05).Conclusion: Distance Electro Therapy is a new intervention of contactless electrotherapy that achieved superior results in ulcer closure.