A comparison of wound area measurement techniques: visitrak versus photography.

Objective: To investigate whether a cheap, fast, easy, and widely available photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak when measuring wound area in cases where a non-wound-contact method is desirable.

Methods: The areas of 40 surgically created wounds on porcine models were measured using 2 techniques-Visitrak and photography combined with ImageJ. The wounds were photographed with a ruler included in the photographic frame to allow ImageJ calibration. The images were uploaded to a computer and opened with ImageJ. The wound outline was defined from the photographic image using a digital pad, and the ImageJ software calculated the wound area. The Visitrak method involved a 2-layered transparent Visitrak film placed on the wound and the outline traced onto the film. The top layer containing the tracing was retraced onto the Visitrak digital pad using the Visitrak pen and the software calculated the wound area.

Results: The average wound area using the photographic method was 52.264 cm(2) and using Visitrak was 51.703 cm(2). The mean difference in wound area was 0.560 cm(2). Using a 2-tailed paired T test, the T statistic was 1.285 and the value .206, indicating no statistical difference between the two methods. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.971.

Conclusions: The photographic method is an accurate alternative to Visitrak for measuring wound area, with no statistical difference in wound area measurement demonstrated during this study. The photographic method is a more appropriate technique for clean and uncontaminated wounds, as contact with the wound bed is avoided.