Presence of Differences in the Radiofrequency Parameters Applied to Complex Pressure Ulcers: A Secondary Analysis

Background: Pressure ulcers are a public health problem given the impact that they have on morbidity, mortality and the quality of life and participation of patients who suffer from them. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the presence of differences in the radiofrequency parameters applied to complex pressure ulcers throughout the sessions and between the right and left leg. As a secondary objective, the subjective perceptions of the effects of the treatment by both the patients and the practitioner were analyzed. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study involving 36 patients from the Hospital de Guadarrama in Madrid, Spain, who presented ulcers in the lower limbs. Ten treatment sessions of radiofrequency were administered with a frequency of one session/week, collecting the data referring to the variables in each of the sessions. The main outcome variables were the radiofrequency parameters automatically adjusted in each session and that referred to the frequency (Hz), maximum and average power (W), absorbed energy by the ulcer (J/cm2) and temperature (°C) reached by the tissues. On the other hand, the subjective perception of the results was evaluated using the Global Response Assessment (GRA), a Likert-type scale that scores the treatment results from 1 (significantly worse) to 5 (significantly better). Likewise, the satisfaction of both the patients and the professional were evaluated using a 10-point numerical scale. Results: The ANOVA test showed significant differences (p < 0.05) throughout the sessions except in patient satisfaction. The ANOVA test showed significant differences (p < 0.05) between both legs and over time in all parameters except for frequency. The presence of significant differences (p < 0.05) was observed over time between legs compared to the initial values in the absorbed energy and in temperature, with higher final values in the absorbed energy in the left leg compared to the right (26.31 ± 3.75 W vs. 17.36 ± 5.66 W) and a moderate effect on both (R(2) = 0.471 and 0.492, respectively). The near absence of changes in the satisfaction of both the patients and the professional was observed, while the score in the GRA decreased continuously throughout the sessions. Conclusions: Radiofrequency parameters are indicative of an improved clinical response to ulcers. In addition, higher radiofrequency exposure increases healing capacity. However, the subjective perception of treatment outcomes worsened, which may be related to the chronic nature of the ulcers, leading to patients’ expectations not being met.