medigraphic.com

2022, Número 1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Revista Cubana de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular 2022; 23 (1)


Exactitud diagnóstica de la imagen fotográfica en la granulación de las úlceras diabéticas mediante segmentación

Rodríguez-Alonso D, Cabrejo-Paredes J, Benites SM

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 25
Paginas: 1-13
Archivo PDF: 283.93 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: La evaluación del estado de las úlceras por imagen fotográfica se realiza cuando se encuentran los colores rojo y rosado, que corresponden a granulación.
Objetivo: Determinar la sensibilidad, especificidad y exactitud de la imagen fotográfica con respecto al estudio histológico en la granulación de úlceras diabéticas.
Métodos: El diseño fue una prueba diagnóstica realizada a 29 pacientes diabéticos con 45 úlceras diabéticas no infectadas, en la cual se comparó la observación directa de un área de granulación por imagen fotográfica como prueba diagnóstica en la evaluación referente al estándar por anatomía patológica, a través de una biopsia sacabocado. La imagen fotográfica se obtuvo mediante un Smartphone CATS61 y se analizó a través de la segmentación en colores rojo y negro con el software ImageJ. El estudio lo autorizó un comité de ética. Las estadísticas se realizaron con el software SPSS 22 y EPIDAT 4.4.
Resultados: Las úlceras diabéticas presentaron un promedio de 3,03 ± 2,39 cm de largo y 2,26 ± 1,62 cm de ancho; de la úlcera tipo 2 según Wagner en 73,3 %; y de la úlcera tipo A, según la Universidad de Texas en 60 %. Las pruebas de diagnóstico por imagen fotográfica mostraron una sensibilidad, especificidad y exactitud en 90 %, 33,3 % y 61,6 %, respectivamente.
Conclusiones: La identificación de la imagen fotográfica y el estudio histológico de las úlceras diabéticas con granulación fueron factibles. La sensibilidad, especificidad y exactitud de la imagen fotográfica resultaron elevada, baja y moderada.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Suvi JRF, Yadi BM. Diabetes atlas. 9th ed. United Kingdom: International Diabetes Federation Press; 2019. p. 6 [access 22/11/2019]. Available from: Available from: https://www.diabetesatlas.org/upload/resources/material/20200302_133351_IDFATLAS9e-final-web.pdf

  2. Xue-Lei F, Hui D, Wei-Wei M, Chun-Xing M, Min-Qi Z, Hong-Lin C. Global recurrence rates in diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019;35(6):1-11. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dmrr.3160

  3. Khunkaew S, Fernandez R, Sim J. Health-related quality of life among adults living with diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 2019 [access 22/11/2019];28(6):1413-27. Available from: Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11136-018-2082-2

  4. Baltzis D, Eleftheriadou I, Veves A. Pathogenesis and treatment of impaired wound healing in diabetes mellitus: new insights. Adv Ther. 2014 [access 22/11/2019];31(8):817-36. Available from: Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12325-014-0140-x

  5. Sorg H, Tilkorn DJ, Hager S, Hauser J, Mirastschijski U. Skin Wound Healing: An Update on the Current Knowledge and Concepts. Eur Surg Res. 2017 [access 22/11/2019];58(1):81-94. Available from: Available from: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/454919

  6. Rennert R, Golinko M, Kaplan D, Flattau A, Brem H. Standarization of wound pothography using the Wound Electronic Medical Record. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009 [access 22/11/2019];22(1):31-8. Available from: Available from: https://journals.lww.com/aswcjournal/Citation/2009/01000/Standardization_of_Wound_Photography_Using_the.11.aspx

  7. Li S, Renick P, Senkowsky J, Nair A, Tang L. Diagnostics for Wound Infections. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2021;10(6):317-27. DOI: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/wound.2019.1103

  8. Schneider SL, Kohli I, Hamzavi IH, Council ML, Ozog DM, Rossi AM. Emerging imaging technologies in dermatology: Part I: Basic principles. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019 [access 22/11/2019];80(4):1114-20. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7469876/

  9. Hasatsri S, Aramwit P. Nontraditional Methods to Evaluate Wound Healing. Dermatol Surg 2017 [access 22/11/2019];43(3):342-50. Available from: Available from: https://journals.lww.com/dermatologicsurgery/Abstract/2017/03000/Nontraditional_Methods_to_Evaluate_Wound_Healing.3.aspx

  10. Russell L, Reynolds TM. Using image analysis to determine cause, severity, status and healing prognosis in wound management. J Wound Care. 2015;14(9):433-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2005.14.9.26838

  11. Ahmad MF, Khansa I, Catignani K, Gordillo G, Sen CK, Gurcan MN. Computerized segmentation and measurement of chronic wound images. Comput Biol Med. 2015;60:74-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.02.015

  12. Patel S, Patel R, Desai D. Diabetic Foot Ulcer Wound Tissue Detection and Classification. 2017 International Conference on Innovations in information Embedded and Communication Systems-India (ICIIECS); 2017 [access 22/11/2019]. p. 1-5. Available from: Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8276007

  13. Van Netten JJ, Clark D, Lazzarini PA, Janda M, Reed LF. The validity and reliability of remote diabetic foot ulcer assessment using mobile phone images. Nature: scientific reports. 2017 [access 22/11/2019];7:1-10. Available from: Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09828-4

  14. Thompson N, Gordey L, Bowles H, Parslow N, Houghton P. Reliability and validity of the revised photographic wound assessment tool on digital images taken of various types of chronic wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013 [access 22/11/2019];26(8):360-73. Available from: Available from: https://journals.lww.com/aswcjournal/Abstract/2013/08000/Reliability_and_Validity_of_the_Revised.7.aspx

  15. Bujang MA, Adnan TH. Requirements for Minimum Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 [access 22/11/2019];10(10):1-6. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121784/

  16. Mukherjee R, Manohar DD Das DK, Achar A, Mitra A, Chakraborty C. Automated tissue classification framework for reproducible chronic wound assessment. BioMed Research International. 2014 [access 22/11/2019]:1-9. Available from: Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/851582/

  17. Bassetto F, Lancerotto L, Salmaso R, Pandis L, Pajardi G, Schiavon M, et al. Histological evolution of chronic wounds under negative pressure therapy. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2012 [access 22/11/2019];65:91-9. Available from: Available from: https://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815(11)00445-1/fulltext

  18. Masson-Meyers DS, Andrade TAM, Caetano GF, Guimaraes FR, Leite MN, Leite SN, et al. Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment. Int J Exp Pathol. 2020 [access 22/11/2019];101(1-2):21-37. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306904/

  19. Thomas RL, Zidan MA, Slovis TL. What you need to know about statistics Part I: validity of diagnostic and screening tests. Pediatr Radiol. 2015 [access 22/11/2019];45(2):146-52. Available from: Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00247-014-2882-7

  20. Buehler AM, Ascef BO, Oliveira Júnior HA, Ferri CP, Fernandes JG. Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2019 [access 22/11/2019];65(3):452-9. Available from: Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/ramb/a/SNkScJB6CxsSWnCNHvS5zjg/?lang=en

  21. Ketomäki T, Vähätupa M, May U, Pemmari T, Ruikka E, Hietamo J, et al. R-Ras regulates vascular permeability, but not overall healing in skin wounds. Exp Dermatol. 2019;8(2):202-6. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.13851

  22. Kanapathy M, Hachach-Haram N, Bystrzonowski N, Connelly JT, O'Toole EA, Becker DL, Mosahebi A, et al. Epidermal grafting for wound healing: a review on the harvesting systems, the ultrastructure of the graft and the mechanism of wound healing. Int Wound J. 2017;14(1):16-23. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iwj.12686

  23. Jhamb S, Vangaveti VN, Malabu UH. Genetic and molecular basis of diabetic foot ulcers: Clinical review. J Tissue Viability. 2016;25(4):229-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2016.06.005

  24. AlMalki WH, Shahid I, Mehdi AY, Hafeez MH. Assessment methods for angiogenesis and current approaches for its quantification. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014 [access 22/11/2019];46(3):251-6. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071699/

  25. Jayachandran M, Rodriguez S, Solis E, Lei J, Godavarty A. A critical review of non-invasive optical technologies for wound imaging. Adv Wound Care. 2016 [access 22/11/2019];5(8):349-5 9. Available from: Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991615/




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com