Clinical outcomes of low-frequency ultrasound wound treatment using the Qoustic Wound Therapy System: A multicenter retrospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63676/7abfsf44Keywords:
Wound healing, Debridement, Ultrasonic therapy, Diabetic foot, Varicose ulcer, Pressure ulcerAbstract
Aims: To characterize longitudinal complete wound closure and percent area reduction (PAR) among patients with full-thickness wounds treated with the Qoustic Wound Therapy System (QWTS) in conjunction with standard of care (SOC) in routine outpatient practice.
Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included patients treated across private outpatient wound practices in five U.S. states. Longitudinal wound-area measurements were analyzed using a Bayesian hurdle-gamma model. Model-standardized cumulative closure probabilities and PAR were estimated over 20 weeks.
Results: The analysis included 994 patients, 1843 wounds, and 12,363 longitudinal observations. Model-standardized cumulative closure probability was 49.4% (95% credible interval [CrI], 47.3%–51.5%) at week 12 and 59.8% (56.8%–62.8%) at week 20. At the prespecified week-12 comparison, estimated PAR was 50.4% (95% CrI, 47.1%–53.3%) overall and 47.5%, 34.6%, 33.3%, and 56.2% for diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure injuries, and the heterogeneous open-wound category, respectively.
Conclusion: Model-standardized closure probabilities and PAR increased over time during QWTS-assisted care. These observational findings characterize real-world wound-healing trajectories across a heterogeneous outpatient wound population but do not establish an independent treatment effect of QWTS.
References
Nussbaum SR, Carter MJ, Fife CE, et al. An economic evaluation of the impact, cost, and Medicare policy implications of chronic nonhealing wounds. Value Health. 2018;21(1):27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.007
Armstrong DG, Tan TW, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. Diabetic foot ulcers: A review. JAMA. 2023;330(1):62-75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.10578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.10578
Sibbald RG, Elliott JA, Persaud-Jaimangal R, et al. Wound bed preparation 2021. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(4):183-195. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000733724.87630.d6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000733724.87630.d6
Malone M, Bjarnsholt T, McBain AJ, et al. The prevalence of biofilms in chronic wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. J Wound Care. 2017;26(1):20-25. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.1.20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.1.20
Gethin G, Cowman S, Kolbach DN. Debridement for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(9):CD008599. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008599.pub2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008599.pub2
Chang YR, Perry J, Cross K. Low-frequency ultrasound debridement in chronic wound healing: A systematic review of current evidence. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2017;25(1):21-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550317693813 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550317693813
Voigt J, Wendelken M, Driver V, Alvarez OM. Low-frequency ultrasound (20-40 kHz) as an adjunctive therapy for chronic wound healing: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2011;10(4):190-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734611424648 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734611424648
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. AR1000 Ultrasonic Wound Therapy System: 510(k) Premarket Notification K062544. 2007. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf6/K062544.pdf (accessed 7 August 2026)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. AR1000 Series Ultrasonic Wound Therapy System: 510(k) Premarket Notification K131096. 2014. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/K131096.pdf (accessed 7 August 2026)
Karau MJ, Piper KE, Steckelberg JM, Kavros SJ, Patel R. In vitro activity of the Qoustic Wound Therapy System against planktonic and biofilm bacteria. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2010;23(7):316-320. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000363557.45726.41 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000363557.45726.41
Conner-Kerr T, Malpass G, Steele A, Howlett A. Effects of 35 kHz, low-frequency ultrasound application in vitro on human fibroblast morphology and migration patterns. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2015;61(3):34-41.
Ennis WJ, Foremann P, Mozen N, Massey J, Conner-Kerr T, Meneses P. Ultrasound therapy for recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers: results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2005;51(8):24-39.
Rastogi A, Bhansali A, Ramachandran S. Efficacy and safety of low-frequency, noncontact airborne ultrasound therapy (glybetac) for neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: A randomized, double-blind, sham-control study. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(1):81-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734619832738 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534734619832738
Yao M, Hasturk H, Kantarci A, et al. A pilot study evaluating non-contact low-frequency ultrasound and underlying molecular mechanism on diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2014;11(6):586-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12005
Olyaie M, Rad FS, Elahifar MA, Garkaz A, Mahsa G. High-frequency and noncontact low-frequency ultrasound therapy for venous leg ulcer treatment: a randomized, controlled study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2013;59(8):14-20.
White J, Ivins N, Wilkes A, Carolan-Rees G, Harding KG. Non-contact low-frequency ultrasound therapy compared with UK standard of care for venous leg ulcers: a single-centre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2016;13(5):833-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12389
Alvarez OM, Wendelken ME, Granick MS. Debridement of venous leg ulcers with direct-contact, low-frequency ultrasound: results of a randomized, prospective, controlled, clinical trial. Eplasty. 2019;19:pb2.
ter Riet G, Kessels AG, Knipschild P. A randomized clinical trial of ultrasound in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Phys Ther. 1996;76(12):1301-1311. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/76.12.1301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/76.12.1301
Wagner-Cox P, Duhame HM, Jamison CR, Jackson RR, Fehr ST. Use of Noncontact Low-Frequency Ultrasound in Deep Tissue Pressure Injury: A Retrospective Analysis. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(4):336-342. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000342
Kavros SJ, Schenck EC. Use of noncontact low-frequency ultrasound in the treatment of chronic foot and leg ulcerations: a 51-patient analysis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2007;97(2):95-101. https://doi.org/10.7547/0970095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7547/0970095
Kavros SJ, Miller JL, Hanna SW. Treatment of ischemic wounds with noncontact, low-frequency ultrasound: the Mayo clinic experience, 2004-2006. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20(4):221-226. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000266660.88900.38 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000266660.88900.38
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are securely stored at the authors’ institution.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Tissue Repair
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
