Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wound Measurement, Score

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vascular Surgery, Neurosurgery, Lower Extremity Ulcers, Antimicrobials, Wound Assessment, Care, Measurement and Repair

Part of the book series: Recent Clinical Techniques, Results, and Research in Wounds ((RCTRRW,volume 5))

  • 540 Accesses

Abstract

Wound measurement is a helpful quantitative finding in wound assessment that can be used as a practical approach to track wound healing. The most common techniques for wound measurement include manual metric measurement, mathematical models, manual planimetry, digital planimetry, stereophotogrammetry, and digital imaging methods. An ideal wound measurement technique has high accuracy, reliability, and feasibility. Currently, no gold standard method exists for wound measurement, though digital methods are preferred since they are generally more accurate and precise than manual methods. With advancements in technology, newer wound measurement techniques are increasingly being developed and studied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Grey JE, Enoch S, Harding KG (2006) Wound assessment. Br Med J 332(7536):285–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu Z, Saldanha IJ, Margolis D, Dumville JC, Cullum NA (2017) Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: an investigation into pre-specification. Wound Repair Regen 25(2):292–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheehan P, Jones P, Caselli A, Giurini JM, Veves A (2003) 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. Diabetes Care 26(6):1879–1882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lavery LA, Barnes SA, Keith MS, Seaman JW Jr, Armstrong DG (2008) Prediction of healing for postoperative diabetic foot wounds based on early wound area progression. Diabetes Care 31(1):26–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jorgensen LB, Sorensen JA, Jemec GB, Yderstraede KB (2016) Methods to assess area and volume of wounds - a systematic review. Int Wound J 13(4):540–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schubert V, Zander M (1996) Analysis of the measurement of four wound variables in elderly patients with pressure ulcers. Adv Wound Care 9(4):29–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kekonen A, Bergelin M, Eriksson JE, Vaalasti A, Ylanen H, Viik J (2017) Bioimpedance measurement based evaluation of wound healing. Physiol Meas 38(7):1373–1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yesiloglu N, Yildiz K, Cem Akpinar A, Gorgulu T, Sirinoglu H, Ozcan A (2016) Histogram planimetry method for the measurement of irregular wounds. Wounds 28(9):328–333

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zang CY, Cao YQ, Xue WJ, Zhao R, Zhang M, Zhang YH, Feng Z, Wang YB (2017) Application of high-frequency ultrasound in dermabrasion of patients with deep partial-thickness burns. Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 33(2):97–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Agabalyan NA, Su S, Sinha S, Gabriel V (2017) Comparison between high-frequency ultrasonography and histological assessment reveals weak correlation for measurements of scar tissue thickness. Burns 43(3):531–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bryant JL, Brooks TL, Schmidt B, Mostow EN (2001) Reliability of wound measuring techniques in an outpatient wound center. Ostomy Wound Manage 47(4):44–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogers LC, Bevilacqua NJ, Armstrong DG, Andros G (2010) Digital planimetry results in more accurate wound measurements: a comparison to standard ruler measurements. J Diabetes Sci Technol 4(4):799–802

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Langemo D, Anderson J, Hanson D, Hunter S, Thompson P (2008) Measuring wound length, width, and area: which technique? Adv Skin Wound Care 21(1):42–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilgin M, Gunes UY (2013) A comparison of 3 wound measurement techniques: effects of pressure ulcer size and shape. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 40(6):590–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bowling FL, King L, Fadavi H, Paterson JA, Preece K, Daniel RW, Matthews DJ, Boulton AJ (2009) An assessment of the accuracy and usability of a novel optical wound measurement system. Diabet Med 26(1):93–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shaw J, Hughes CM, Lagan KM, Bell PM, Stevenson MR (2007) An evaluation of three wound measurement techniques in diabetic foot wounds. Diabetes Care 30(10):2641–2642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thawer HA, Houghton PE, Woodbury MG, Keast D, Campbell K (2002) A comparison of computer-assisted and manual wound size measurement. Ostomy Wound Manage 48(10):46–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gethin G, Cowman S (2006) Wound measurement comparing the use of acetate tracings and Visitrak digital planimetry. J Clin Nurs 15(4):422–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wunderlich RP, Peters EJ, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA (2000) Reliability of digital videometry and acetate tracing in measuring the surface area of cutaneous wounds. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 49(2–3):87–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sugama J, Matsui Y, Sanada H, Konya C, Okuwa M, Kitagawa A (2007) A study of the efficiency and convenience of an advanced portable wound measurement system (VISITRAK). J Clin Nurs 16(7):1265–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wendelken ME, Berg WT, Lichtenstein P, Markowitz L, Comfort C, Alvarez OM (2011) Wounds measured from digital photographs using photodigital planimetry software: validation and rater reliability. Wounds 23(9):267–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bien P, De Anda C, Prokocimer P (2014) Comparison of digital planimetry and ruler technique to measure ABSSSI lesion sizes in the ESTABLISH–1 study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 15(2):105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stockton KA, McMillan CM, Storey KJ, David MC, Kimble RM (2015) 3D photography is as accurate as digital planimetry tracing in determining burn wound area. Burns 41(1):80–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang AC, Dearman B, Greenwood JE (2011) A comparison of wound area measurement techniques: Visitrak versus photography. Eplasty 11:e18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mukherjee R, Tewary S, Routray A (2017) Diagnostic and prognostic utility of non-invasive multimodal imaging in chronic wound monitoring: a systematic review. J Med Syst 41(3):46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis KE, Constantine FC, Macaslan EC, Bills JD, Noble DL, Lavery LA (2013) Validation of a laser-assisted wound measurement device for measuring wound volume. J Diabetes Sci Technol 7(5):1161–1166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Anghel EL, Kumar A, Bigham TE, Maselli KM, Steinberg JS, Evans KK, Kim PJ, Attinger CE (2016) The reliability of a novel mobile 3-dimensional wound measurement device. Wounds 28(11):379–386

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hammond CE, Nixon MA (2011) The reliability of a handheld wound measurement and documentation device in clinical practice. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 38(3):260–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Miller C, Karimi L, Donohue L, Kapp S (2012) Interrater and intrarater reliability of silhouette wound imaging device. Adv Skin Wound Care 25(11):513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sprigle S, Nemeth M, Gajjala A (2012) Iterative design and testing of a hand-held, non-contact wound measurement device. J Tissue Viability 21(1):17–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haghpanah S, Bogie K, Wang X, Banks PG, Ho CH (2006) Reliability of electronic versus manual wound measurement techniques. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(10):1396–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Foltynski P, Ladyzynski P, Sabalinska S, Wojcicki JM (2013) Accuracy and precision of selected wound area measurement methods in diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Technol Ther 15(8):712–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ladyzynski P, Foltynski P, Molik M, Tarwacka J, Migalska-Musial K, Mlynarczuk M, Wojcicki JM, Krzymien J, Karnafel W (2011) Area of the diabetic ulcers estimated applying a foot scanner-based home telecare system and three reference methods. Diabetes Technol Ther 13(11):1101–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Khoo R, Jansen S (2016) The evolving field of wound measurement techniques: a literature review. Wounds 28(6):175–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Santamaria N, Ogce F, Gorelik A (2012) Healing rate calculation in the diabetic foot ulcer: comparing different methods. Wound Repair Regen 20(5):786–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Prompers L, Schaper N, Apelqvist J, Edmonds M, Jude E, Mauricio D, Uccioli L, Urbancic V, Bakker K, Holstein P, Jirkovska A, Piaggesi A, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Reike H et al (2008) Prediction of outcome in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers: focus on the differences between individuals with and without peripheral arterial disease. The EURODIALE Study. Diabetologia 51(5):747–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Parker CN, Finlayson KJ, Shuter P, Edwards HE (2015) Risk factors for delayed healing in venous leg ulcers: a review of the literature. Int J Clin Pract 69(9):967–977

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Harris LS, Luck JE, Atherton RR (2017) Suboptimal identification of patient-specific risk factors for poor wound healing can be improved by simple interventions. Int Wound J 14(1):138–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Katherine M. Marsh

  2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA

    Ersilia L. Anghel M.D.

Authors
  1. Katherine M. Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ersilia L. Anghel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ersilia L. Anghel M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tustin, CA, USA

    Melvin A. Shiffman

  2. Newport Beach, CA, USA

    Mervin Low

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marsh, K.M., Anghel, E.L. (2018). Wound Measurement, Score. In: Shiffman, M., Low, M. (eds) Vascular Surgery, Neurosurgery, Lower Extremity Ulcers, Antimicrobials, Wound Assessment, Care, Measurement and Repair. Recent Clinical Techniques, Results, and Research in Wounds, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/15695_2017_83

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/15695_2017_83

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10715-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10716-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation