Hyperpolarized Light Therapy Versus Traditional Wound Care On Different Wound Types

Abstract

Background and Aim: Dismissing hyperpolarized light as an adjuvant therapy for wounds and technique distinctions in the trials locks in hyperpolarized light are the reasons for many predicaments and inconsistencies. The point of this study was to set up the impacts of hyperpolarized light treatment in wounds. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of Hyperpolarized light in patient with different wound types.
Methods: Thirty patients with different wound injuries typeswere participated in the study, and were divided randomly into two equal groups. Group (A) received Hyperpolarized light and traditional wound care Group (B) received traditional wound care only. Both groups were assessed before treatment, after two weeks of treatment and after four weeks of treatment in terms of wound management.
Results: By performing Paired Simple t-test for both two groups pretreatment and after 2 weeks of treatment, P Value is 0.000 so it was below 0.05, There was a significant difference between control and experimental group. By performing Repeated Measure ANOVA test for the pretreatment, after 2 weeks and after 4 weeks of treatment, P Value is 0.001 so it is below 0.05, There was a significant difference between control and experimental group. There was a significant improvement in Group A which received Hyperpolarized Light and Traditional Wound Care.
Conclusion: The effects of hyperpolarized light as an adjuvant therapy for different wound were satisfactory. After 4 weeks of treatment, 15 patients with differentwound types showed a significant improvementin the wound healing process, so it could be useful to apply hyperpolarized light in the treatment of different wound types.