Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 25, 2026
Development of a Benchtop Model for Evaluating the Compatibility of Wound Dressing Materials with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems
Published on: May 2, 2025
The Efficacy of Pressure Ulcer Treatment With Cathodal and Cathodal-Anodal High-Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current: A
Anna Polak1, Luther C Kloth2, Edward Blaszczak3
1Department of Physical Therapy, Academy of Physical Education, Mikolowska 72A, Katowice 40-065 Poland and Medical Department, Katowice School of Exonomics, Katowice, Poland.
Background:
Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are not available.
Objective:
To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of Category II-IV pressure ulcers (PrUs).
Design:
Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study.
Setting:
Three nursing and care centers.
Patients:
Sixty-three participants with PrUs were randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: N = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD 8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: N = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and a placebo ES group (PG: N = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24).
Intervention:
All patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 μs; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 μC/s) for 50 minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received, respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU.
Measurements:
Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week 6.
Results:
Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.06-94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51-88.04). These reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI 23.60-57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different regarding treatment results.
Limitations:
The time of treatment proved insufficient for PrUs to close.
Conclusions:
Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC similarly reduced the area of Category II-IV PrUs.
