Wounds measured from digital photographs using photodigital planimetry software: validation and rater reliability.

UNLABELLED  Traditional wound tracing technique consists of tracing the perimeter of the wound on clear acetate with a fine-tip marker, then placing the tracing on graph paper and counting the grids to calculate the surface area. Standard wound measurement technique for calcu- lating wound surface area (wound tracing) was compared to a new wound measurement method using digital photo-planimetry software ([DPPS], PictZar® Digital Planimetry). METHODS Two hundred wounds of varying etiologies were measured and traced by experienced exam- iners (raters). Simultaneously, digital photographs were also taken of each wound. The digital photographs were downloaded onto a PC, and using DPPS software, the wounds were measured and traced by the same examiners. Accuracy, intra- and interrater reliability of wound measurements obtained from tracings and from DPPS were studied and compared. Both accuracy and rater variability were directly related to wound size when wounds were measured and traced in the tradi- tional manner. RESULTS In small (< 4 cm2), regularly shaped (round or oval) wounds, both accuracy and rater reliability was 98% and 95%, respectively. However, in larger, irregularly shaped wounds or wounds with epithelial islands, DPPS was more accurate than traditional mea- suring (3.9% vs. 16.2% [average error]). The mean inter-rater reliabil- ity score was 94% for DPPS and 84% for traditional measuring. The mean intrarater reliability score was 98.3% for DPPS and 89.3% for traditional measuring. In contrast to traditional measurements, DPPS may provide a more objective assessment since it can be done by a technician who is blinded to the treatment plan. Planimetry of digital photographs allows for a closer examination (zoom) of the wound and better visibility of advancing epithelium. CONCLUSION Measurements of wounds performed on digital photographs using planimetry software were simple and convenient. It was more accurate, more objective, and resulted in better correlation within and between examiners. .

[1]  E A Tolley,et al.  A comparison of photographic and transparency-based methods for measuring wound surface area. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[2]  S J Henly,et al.  Comparison of 2 wound volume measurement methods. , 2001, Advances in skin & wound care.

[3]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Documentation of wound surface area from tracings of wound perimeters. Clinical report on three techniques. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[4]  Carrie Sussman.  Pushing for results. , 2004, Rehab management.

[5]  M. G. Woodbury,et al.  A comparison of computer-assisted and manual wound size measurement. , 2002, Ostomy/wound management.

[6]  Tina Schwien,et al.  Pressure ulcer prevalence and the role of negative pressure wound therapy in home health quality outcomes. , 2005, Ostomy/wound management.

[7]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  Marco Romanelli,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a wound measurement and documentation system. , 2008, Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice.

[9]  V. Falanga,et al.  Prognostic indicators in venous ulcers. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[10]  C. Majeske,et al.  Reliability of wound surface area measurements. , 1992, Physical Therapy.

[11]  J. Giurini,et al.  Percent change in wound area of diabetic foot ulcers over a 4-week period is a robust predictor of complete healing in a 12-week prospective trial. , 2003, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  L. van Rijswijk,et al.  Predictors of time to healing deep pressure ulcers. , 1994, Ostomy/wound management.

[13]  R. D. de Haan,et al.  Pressure Ulcer Surface Area Measurement Using Instant Full-Scale Photography and Transparency Tracings , 2002, Advances in skin & wound care.