From all the information and topics discussed in the previous blogs about the use of microcurrent electrical stimulation in wound healing, we have covered the history, physiology, applications, current evidence, precautions of the electrical stimulation, devices available and its parameters. Despite positive results from the majority of the research, there remains an area where future research and improvement should be directed, before microcurrent electrical stimulation is able to become a widespread device recommended in medical settings for wound healing.
Much research supports the efficacy of this treatment technique, suggesting microcurrent stimulation at a cellular level will increase cell division, stimulate secretion of growth factor, and ATP synthesis, and therefore accelerate wound healing, improve fracture union, and increase wound epithelialization. Most research applied the microcurrent stimulation in between 40-100uA depending on the resistance of the wound sites. The frequency setting is generally quite low, with most studies suggesting 0.5Hz as the optimal frequency. On the other hand, there is a much greater variability in the literature with regards to duration of the treatment, some using 3.5 hours a day for 5 days a week, other using 20 minutes every 2 days, the most recent researches even suggest continuous stimulation until closure of wounds, and all of the above durations show effective results.
However despite these findings providing suggested parameters to perform microcurrent stimulation, a gold standard is yet to be established for the treatment of wounds. Moreover the research into the effect of microcurrent stimulation on humans still requires refinement. The majority of the studies found were conducted on animals such as rats and horses, whose results will not be fully representative of a human’s reaction to stimulation. The information and research in the negative effects on patients also requires further research, as currently all precaution were based on tradition electrical stimulation, assuming the microcurrent will cause even less side effects due to the current being so low.
The results from the most recent research strongly suggests that microcurrent has a high potential to become a widespread device recommended in medical settings for wound healing. With the parameters evident from the previous researches, it can be easily and safely used to accelerate wound healing. The use of microcurrent stimulation over other alternative devices has the advantage of supporting evidence in its effectiveness, ready availability, relative cost effectiveness, and safety as there are no known significant adverse side effects to microcurrent stimulation. Research has also shown it can be used for treating patients with various wounds (eg. Chronic skin ulcers, pressure ulcers, surgical wounds, burn wounds, trichloroacetic acid peeling). It will be especially useful for the patients seeking alternative treatment, whose previous treatment is unable to treat the resistant wound or is suffering from its side-effects. The disadvantages are this treatment technique is still evolving, further research is needed to find its absolute effect in healing mechanism, and gold standards and safety protocols need to be established in human application. If this research is done, then we believe MET has a very large chance of becoming a mainstay of wound treatments for the foreseeable future.
