Comparing Digital, Mobile and Three-Dimensional Methods in Pressure Injury Measurement: Agreement in Surface Area and...

To examine the consistency among three wound measurement methods in assessing pressure injury surface area and to compare manual depth measurement with three-dimensional wound measurement.

Methodological and comparative study.

This study was conducted between 2022 and 2024 at a university hospital, involving 125 pressure injuries. The wound surface area was measured using three different methods, and depth was measured using a sterile cotton swab and three dimensional wound measurement method. STARD reporting guidelines were followed.

This study found a statistically significant, strong positive correlation among the three wound measurement methods. However, a significant difference was detected, with digital planimetry yielding higher values than other methods. No significant difference was observed between depth measurement methods.

Digital wound measurement methods are fast, non-contact, accurate and reliable for assessing pressure injury surface area. Additionally, three dimensional wound measurement serves as a potential aseptic, non-contact alternative to traditional depth measurement, making it a valuable tool in clinical settings.

Future advancements in wound measurement should focus on artificial intelligence-driven wound boundary detection and improved automation for more consistent and reliable measurements.

The study addressed the absence of a universally accepted 'gold standard' for wound measurement. Findings showed that digital planimetry provided the highest measurements, while three-dimensional wound measurement and imitoMeasure demonstrated accuracy, reliability and efficiency. This research will impact wound care specialists and healthcare institutions by improving pressure injury measurement and promoting standardised digital methods in clinical practice.

No Patient or Public Contribution.

NCT06559657.