bio-frequency spectrum radiation & wound healing j. m. schramm, m.a., r. a. hardesty, m.d., k....

BIO-FREQUENCY SPECTRUM RADIATION & WOUND

HEALINGJ. M. Schramm, M.A., R. A. Hardesty,

M.D., K. C. Oberg, M.D., Ph.D.

PROBLEM & BACKGROUND

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS

BFS & WOUND HEALING

CLINICAL PROBLEM

Compromised wound healing (bed sores, DM, smokers)

Electromagnetic radiation in wound healing Microwave radiation in wound

healing Infrared radiation in wound healing

Bio-Frequency Spectrum (BFS) radiation

BACKGROUND: BFS & LIGHT SPECTRUM

Light frequency spectrum Microwave Infrared

BFS Microwave Infrared

BACKGROUND: BFS RADIATION TREATMENT

Reported results of BFS treatment for bed sores

Reported results from C. Kun, et. al., 1995.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES Controlled evaluation of wound

healing

MacFarlane flap tissue survival

Simple incision breaking strength

METHODS: EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

Anesthesia Nembutal 2 cc/kg

Flap design MacFarlane flap

Standardization 4x10 cm template Stapled incision

METHODS: EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

Anesthesia Nembutal 2 cc/kg

Incisional design Midline incision

Standardization 3 cm template Clipped incision

METHODS: TREATMENT PROTOCOL

Control group No treatment (Social cage 30 min. twice

daily)

METHODS: TREATMENT PROTOCOL

Treatment groups Infrared radiation

30 min. twice daily

BFS radiation 30 min. twice daily

RESULTS: DATA ANALYSIS

MacFarlane flap Planimetric analysis

Surface area survivability

RESULTS: DATA ANALYSIS

Simple incision Tensiometer analysis

Wound breaking strength

RESULTS: MACFARLANE FLAP

BFS treatment 22.0% (+/- 11.8%)

p<.01 vs. controls p=.16 vs. IR

IR treatment 30.3% (+/- 10.0%)

Controls 36.9% (+/- 9.6%)

MacFarland Flap Necrosis

Treatment Group

Perce

nt N

ecro

sisControl IR BFS

RESULTS: SIMPLE INCISION BFS treatment

2.62N/mm2(+/-0.44N/mm2)

p<.001 vs. controls p<.10 vs. IR

IR treatment 2.26N/mm2(+/-0.38N/mm2)

p<.03 vs. controls

Controls 1.73N/mm2(+/-0.47N/mm2)

Wound Breaking Strength

Treatment Groups

New

tons

per

mm

*2

Control IR BFS

DISCUSSION

BFS vs. Controls Less flap necrosis

p<.01 Greater wound breaking strength

p<.001

BFS vs. IR Trend towards less flap necrosis

p=.16 Greater wound breaking strength

p<.01

CONCLUSIONS

BFS as efficient as IR in wound healing Flap necrosis Simple incision tensile strength

BFS trends Appears to show greater wound healing

than IR Future research

Verify results Expand to other models