The efficacy of low-frequency ultrasound as an added treatment for chronic wounds: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of low-frequency ultrasound as an added treatment for chronic wounds. A systematic literature search up to May 2022 was performed and 838 subjects with chronic wounds at the baseline of the studies; 412 of them were using the low-frequency ultrasound (225 low-frequency high-intensity contact ultrasound for diabetic foot wound ulcers, and 187 low-frequency low-intensity non-contact ultrasound for a venous leg wound ulcers), and 426 were using standard care (233 sharp debridements for diabetic foot wound ulcers and 193 sham treatments for venous leg wound ulcers). Odds ratio (OR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of low-frequency ultrasound as an added treatment for chronic wounds using the dichotomous, and contentious methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The low-frequency high-intensity contact ultrasound for diabetic foot wound ulcers had significantly lower non-healed diabetic foot wound ulcers at ≥3 months (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.56, P < .001), a higher percentage of diabetic foot wound ulcers area reduction (MD, 17.18; 95% CI, 6.62-27.85, P = .002) compared with sharp debridement for diabetic foot wound ulcers. The low-frequency low-intensity non-contact ultrasound for a venous leg wound ulcers had a significantly lower non-healed venous leg wound ulcers at ≥3 months (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.62, P = .001), and higher percentage venous leg wound ulcers area reduction (MD, 18.96; 95% CI, 2.36-35.57, P = .03) compared with sham treatments for a venous leg wound ulcers. The low-frequency ultrasound as an added treatment for diabetic foot wound ulcers and venous leg wound ulcers had significantly lower non-healed chronic wound ulcers at ≥3 months, a higher percentage of chronic wound ulcers area reduction compared with standard care. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of all the 17 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.