Elsevier

Biosensors and Bioelectronics

Volume 41, 15 March 2013, Pages 30-42
Biosensors and Bioelectronics

Sensors and imaging for wound healing: A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2012.09.029Get rights and content

Abstract

Wound healing involves a complex series of biochemical events and has traditionally been managed with ‘low tech’ dressings and bandages. The concept that diagnostic and theranostic sensors can complement wound management is rapidly growing in popularity as there is tremendous potential to apply this technology to both acute and chronic wounds. Benefits in sensing the wound environment include reduction of hospitalization time, prevention of amputations and better understanding of the processes which impair healing. This review discusses the state-of-the-art in detection of markers associated with wound healing and infection, utilizing devices imbedded within dressings or as point-of-care techniques to allow for continual or rapid wound assessment and monitoring. Approaches include using biological or chemical sensors of wound exudates and volatiles to directly or indirectly detect bacteria, monitor pH, temperature, oxygen and enzymes. Spectroscopic and imaging techniques are also reviewed as advanced wound monitoring techniques. The review concludes with a discussion of the limitations of and future directions for this field.

Highlights

►Sensors have the potential to revolutionize the management of wounds. ► Point-of-care sensors may be used as diagnostic or theranostic tools. ► The approaches being investigated span multiple disciplines. ► Better understanding of healing markers is needed.

Introduction

In the last century, there have only been a handful of technical advances that have contributed to changes in the discipline of wound management. One of the most important was in the 1960s when it was found that keeping a wound moist accelerates the healing processes. This was reported in the pivotal study by Winter in 1962 (Winter, 1962) and later became accepted practice and indeed a key design parameter in the development of dressings (Wu et al., 1995). The other crucial developments have been the management of infections in wounds through the use of anti-microbial agents, most notably, silver and iodine (Mertz et al., 1999, Wright et al., 2002), the use of compression pressure therapy (for chronic venous leg ulcers) (Wong et al., 2012), skin grafts (Rizzi et al., 2010) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (breathing 100% oxygen at elevated pressure) (Malda et al., 2007). Each of these breakthroughs has resulted in new commercial products. For instance, there are now numerous different hydration-controlling dressings available (Queen et al., 1987, Queen et al., 2004); while for infection control dressings impregnated with silver have become ubiquitous in wound management (Wright et al., 2002) (Fig. 1). Despite these advancements and the wide range of dressings available, wound management is still extremely challenging due to its subjectivity, the complexity of the wound healing process itself, and patient variability.

There is now growing evidence to suggest that we are currently on the verge of the next significant advance in wound care where sensors will be used as diagnostic tools in wound healing to revolutionize wound care practice. The main types of wounds which will benefit most from sensor technology are chronic ulcers, and to a lesser extent infected acute wounds and large full-thickness burns. Chronic ulcers can be especially difficult to treat, highly susceptible to infection and can cause long-term suffering for the patient. Sensor innovation in the management of these wounds has the potential to impact clinical practice, patient outcomes and economic policy.

Chronic ulcers are a substantial cause of morbidity and societal burden worldwide. Foot ulcers, for instance, occur in approximately 25% of diabetics and are the leading cause of non-traumatic amputation in developed countries (Turns, 2011). In United States, chronic wounds as a whole are estimated to affect approximately 1–2% of the population during their lifetime (Gottrup, 2004), translating to an estimated morbidity of 6.5 million sufferers at a cost of US$25 billion per annum (Crovetti et al., 2004, Singer and Clark, 1999). Equally concerning is the rate at which chronic wound incidence is increasing due to lifestyle changes and the aging population. Together these phenomena pose a substantial threat to the future of health provision and the management of national economies (Sen et al., 2009). Wound management technologies and strategies are underdeveloped and need to evolve to meet this present and increasing challenge. Accordingly, reflecting on current practice may identify avenues for innovation and improvement.

Currently, when a patient presents with a wound there are a series of standard steps that will be followed by the clinician. Initially, their past medical history, including cardiovascular profile and peripheral vascular disease, and the wound history would be established together with a physical examination of the patient and of their wound (Turns, 2011). This may be followed by an array of tests including physical examination and imaging of the wound. In a best-case scenario once the wound etiology and the current status of the wound have been established, a management plan will be put in place. This can involve swabbing for detection of infection, preparation of the wound (cleaning and possibly debridement), dressing of the wound and coverage with bandages.

The time taken from initial presentation of a wound to the commencement of a wound management plan may be lengthy and require multiple appointments with a clinician, as any laboratory tests ordered can take hours or days to complete. Once treatment has commenced the patient would then be re-evaluated at subsequent appointments which can be days to months apart. These cumulative delays and follow-up appointments stall the administration of appropriate treatment and lead to increased cost. This is critical in terms of chronic wound management, where it has been shown that the longer the delay in treatment, the more difficult a wound is to heal (Margolis et al., 2000, Moffatt et al., 2009). As such, the use of rapid, specific and quantitative assessments, that can be completed during a standard medical consultation, would be better suited to wound management.

Point-of-care (POC) technologies are designed to provide rapid medical assessments at, or near, the site of patient care. These technologies are well suited to wound management due to their designed ease-of-use, convenience and rapid turnaround. In terms of wounds, POC assessment has the potential to ensure that effective management, based on relevant biochemistry, is administered without delay, rather than after the fact. This type of assessment is further suited to wound management due to the abundance of assayable biochemistry found within the wound environment such as proteolysis and reduction-oxidation events. Tests could be modeled from the modern pregnancy test whereby a simple readout is diagnostic of a particular wound parameter. Indeed, this has been the approach of Systagenix in the development of a POC device for evaluating elevated protease activity through their Woundcheck™ Protease Status diagnostic (Serena et al., 2011) (Fig. 1). While the POC technology, such as that developed by Systagenix, is well-suited to wound management, technological innovations are paving the way for the development of next-generation wound assessment tools.

An area of growing research which could revolutionize wound care is in ‘smart dressings’. Similar to the emerging field of “wearable” or “epidermal” electronics (Kim et al., 2011), smart dressings use biochemical cues to generate readable output which has diagnostic or theranostic value. The difference between these two terms is that a diagnostic will give an accurate, non-subjective decision-making output (e.g. the wound is or is not infected), whereas a theranostic may help guide treatment (e.g. the wound has a certain level of matrix metalloproteinases) (Harding, 2007). Diagnostics would be aimed at the deskilled care-giver, whereas theranostics would be useful for experienced wound specialists and researchers. ‘Smart dressings’ have the potential to expedite the diagnosis of wounds through the use of biosensors either incorporated into or near wound dressings, similar to POC dip-stick-type tests, to generate a result in minutes. When applied as continuous or semi-continuous monitoring devices, smart dressing readouts may also be used to resolve predictive trends. The ability to not just monitor wound healing but also to predict it will help ensure potentially problematic wounds receive the appropriate attention at the earliest possible stage. This information may be used to help guide wound practitioners to adopt a more or less aggressive management strategy, at the right time, to achieve healing.

As ‘smart dressings’ and POC diagnostics/theranostics are on the verge of becoming a commercial reality, it is an opportune time to review the literature in order to examine the wide range of approaches being used by multiple disciplines to apply sensor and imaging methods to the wound environment. While there has been extensive research into sensors for biomedical applications, this review will be restricted to technologies pertaining to wound healing.

Section snippets

Potential markers

The complexity of the wound healing process means there ought to be an abundance of possible diagnostic and theranostic targets. A list of markers under investigation for use in wound healing was recently published by Harding and an expert working group in “Diagnostics and wounds—a consensus document” (Harding, 2007) and is reproduced in Table 1 below.

What is noticeable about this table is that it relatively general and highlights the importance of continued research into better understanding

Sensors for detection of infection

One of the single most common complications preventing wounds from healing is infection. Staphylococci and Streptococci are the two prevalent opportunistic pathogenic organisms found in community-acquired superficial wounds and are also common to many chronic wounds (Davies et al., 2001) known to harbor diverse microbial populations (Dowd et al., 2008). There are many obvious signs of advanced infection including redness, heat, swelling, purulent exudate, smell, pain, systemic illness, “foamy”

Importance of pH

All biochemical processes in the body, including wound healing, are influenced by pH. Normally the pH of healthy skin is slightly acidic, in the range of pH 4–6, but when it is damaged this acidic milieu is disturbed as the body's internal pH of 7.4 is exposed. In circumstances where the wound is acute, the pH follows a relatively simple pathway through an acidic inflammation stage followed by a more basic granulation step before re-establishing in the pH 4–6 range during re-epithelization (

Moisture

Wound moisture levels are known to be critical to healing (Winter, 1962, Wu et al., 1995)—too much moisture can result in maceration while too little can lead to the wound drying out (Banks et al., 1997). This key finding by Winter in the 1960s has led to a proliferation of dressing materials designed specifically to control the moisture content including films, hydrocolloids, foams, alginates and hydrogels (Queen et al., 1987, Queen et al., 2004). McColl et al. (2007) have developed an

Spectroscopy

Vibrational spectroscopy is a technique that may be useful in the monitoring of wounds and although it is not strictly a sensor technique it is worth reviewing the state-of-the-art with respect to wounds as it may inspire sensor-type approaches in future. Hand-held portable spectrometers are now available making it feasible for a clinic to have one in their inventory (Erickson and Godavarty, 2009). Monitoring of deoxy- and oxy-hemoglobin has been achieved using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy

Wound imaging

Imaging of whole wounds has the potential to offer the clinician much greater information than single-target diagnostics. In fact, one of the most basic and yet powerful tools in any wound clinic is visual observation of the site. Unfortunately, this approach is only useful if the observer has seen enough wounds, followed their progression and can confidently use this knowledge to inform their management program. Appreciably, this accumulation of experience may take many years. Imaging and the

Conclusions and future directions

Since the invention of the blood oxygen sensor in the 1960s by Clarke and Lyons (1962), biosensors have become a ubiquitous part of the research landscape. Two of the most successful and recognizable technologies which have gone onto be commercially available are the blood glucose monitor for diabetics and the hCG hormone pregnancy test, but there are other sensor technologies now beginning to permeate the home diagnostics market targeted at variety of health conditions (Lee, 2008). With the

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Michelle Gibb and Dr Gregory Schultz for helpful advice and to Mike Plum for help with the figures. The funding for this project was provided by the Wound Management Innovation Cooperative Research Center (WMICRC) and the Tissue Repair and Regeneration Program at QUT.

References (116)

  • R.A. Allardyce et al.

    Journal of Microbiological Methods

    (2006)
  • D.G. Armstrong et al.

    American Journal of Medicine

    (2007)
  • A.L.P.S. Bailey et al.

    Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical

    (2008)
  • O. Bisi et al.

    Surface Science Reports

    (2000)
  • G. Crovetti et al.

    Transfusion and Apheresis Science

    (2004)
  • S.J. Erickson et al.

    Medical Engineering and Physics

    (2009)
  • J. Feng et al.

    Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical

    (2011)
  • D.C. Hoffmann et al.

    Journal of Biological Chemistry

    (2011)
  • A.M. Horgan et al.

    Biosensors and Bioelectronics

    (2006)
  • A. Jane et al.

    N.H, V

    Trends in Biotechnology

    (2009)
  • G. Korotcenkov

    Materials Science and Engineering B: Solid-State Materials for Advanced Technology

    (2007)
  • Y.C. Liu et al.

    Journal of Investigative Dermatology

    (2011)
  • D. Margolis et al.

    American Journal of Medicine

    (2000)
  • D. McColl et al.

    International Journal of Surgery

    (2007)
  • V.K.M. Poon et al.

    Burns

    (2004)
  • D. Queen et al.

    Biomaterials

    (1987)
  • E.A. Rayment et al.

    Biomaterials

    (2008)
  • A. Setkus et al.

    Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical

    (2006)
  • D. Sharp et al.

    Bioelectrochemistry

    (2010)
  • J. Shepherd et al.

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • V. Sridhar et al.

    Sensors and Actuators A: Physical

    (2009)
  • S. Trupp et al.

    Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical

    (2010)
  • 〈http://www.systagenix.com/our-products/lets-test〉 (accessed...
  • 〈www.technewsdaily.com/1454-expressive-bandage-displays-infectious-spread-.html〉 (accessed...
  • S.D. Alvarez et al.

    Physica Status Solidi A

    (2007)
  • G. Amato et al.
  • V. Banks et al.

    Journal of Wound Care

    (1997)
  • A.Z. Berna et al.

    PLoS One

    (2009)
  • P.G. Bowler et al.

    Journal of Wound Care

    (1999)
  • J. Broadbent et al.

    Proteomics Clinical Applications

    (2010)
  • A. Burd et al.

    Wound Repair and Regeneration

    (2007)
  • L.T. Canham

    Applied Physics Letters

    (1990)
  • Y. Cao et al.

    Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A

    (2011)
  • S. Chan et al.

    Journal of the American Chemical Society

    (2001)
  • J.N. Chazalviel et al.

    Optoelectronic Properties of Semiconductor and Superlattices

  • L.C. Clark et al.

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

    (1962)
  • D.M. Cooper et al.

    Annals of Surgery

    (1994)
  • C.E. Davies et al.

    Wound Repair and Regeneration

    (2001)
  • S.E. Dowd et al.

    PLoS One

    (2008)
  • J.V. Edwards et al.

    Journal of Peptide Research

    (2005)
  • J.V. Edwards et al.

    Sensor Letters

    (2008)
  • S.A. Eming et al.

    Journal of Proteome Research

    (2010)
  • Fauchet, P.M., 1998. In: Lockwood, David J. (Ed.). Light Emission in Silicon: From Physics to Devices. Vol. 49,...
  • M.L. Fernandez et al.

    International Wound Journal

    (2012)
  • L.Z. Gao et al.

    Analytical Chemistry

    (2008)
  • F. Gottrup

    American Journal of Surgery

    (2004)
  • R. Grolman et al.

    The American Surgeon

    (2001)
  • Harding, K., 2007. Diagnostics and Wounds. A Consensus...
  • A. Hasmann et al.

    Experimental Dermatology

    (2011)
  • Healy, Brendan , Freedman, Andrew, 2006. Infections. In: Grey, Joseph E., Harding, Keith G. (Eds.), ABC of Wound...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text