scholarly journals Non‐contact low‐frequency ultrasound therapy compared with UK standard of care for venous leg ulcers: a single‐centre, assessor‐blinded, randomised controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 833-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith White ◽  
Nicola Ivins ◽  
Antony Wilkes ◽  
Grace Carolan‐Rees ◽  
Keith G Harding
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ultrasound Therapy ◽  
Leg Ulcers ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Low Frequency Ultrasound ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Frequency Ultrasound

Use of Noncontact Low-Frequency Ultrasound in the Treatment of Chronic Foot and Leg Ulcerations

2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Kavros ◽  
Erik C. Schenck
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Volume Reduction ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Ultrasound Therapy ◽  
Low Frequency Ultrasound ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Frequency Ultrasound

Background: A feasibility study was conducted to characterize the effects of noncontact low-frequency ultrasound therapy for chronic, recalcitrant lower-leg and foot ulcerations.Methods: The study was an open-label, nonrandomized, baseline-controlled clinical case series. Patients were initially treated with the Mayo Clinic standard of care before the addition of or the switch to noncontact low-frequency ultrasound therapy. We analyzed the medical records of 51 patients (median ± SD age, 72 ± 15 years) with one or more of the following conditions: diabetes mellitus, neuropathy, limb ischemia, chronic renal insufficiency, venous disease, and inflammatory connective tissue disease. All of the patients had lower-extremity ulcers, 20% had a history of amputation, and 65% had diabetes. Of all the wounds, 63% had a multifactorial etiology, and 65% had associated transcutaneous oximetry levels below 30 mm Hg.Results: The mean ± SD treatment time of wounds during the baseline standard of care control period versus the noncontact low-frequency ultrasound therapy period was 9.8 ± 5.5 weeks versus 5.5 ± 2.8 weeks (P < .0001). Initial and end measurements were recorded, and percent volume reduction of the wound was calculated. The mean ± SD percent volume reduction in the baseline standard of care control period versus the noncontact low-frequency ultrasound therapy period was 37.3% ± 18.6% versus 94.9% ± 9.8% (P < .0001).Conclusions: Using noncontact low-frequency ultrasound improved the rate of healing and closure in recalcitrant lower-extremity ulcerations. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 97(2): 95–101, 2007)

scholarly journals Use of weekly, low dose, high frequency ultrasound for hard to heal venous leg ulcers: the VenUS III randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 342 (mar08 2) ◽  
pp. d1092-d1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Watson ◽  
A. R. Kang'ombe ◽  
M. O. Soares ◽  
L.-H. Chuang ◽  
G. Worthy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Leg Ulcers ◽  
High Frequency Ultrasound ◽  
Venous Leg Ulcers ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Frequency Ultrasound

The comparative study of high- and low-frequency ultrasound therapy on bone regeneration

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. S120-S121
Author(s):  
S. Bashardoust Tajali ◽  
S. Kazemi ◽  
A. Azari ◽  
A. Shahverdi ◽  
M. Jabal Ameli
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Ultrasound Therapy ◽  
Low Frequency Ultrasound ◽  
The Comparative Study ◽  
Frequency Ultrasound
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document