VincentNacon t1_ixugrcn wrote
>"The device itself consists of wireless circuitry that utilizes impedance/temperature sensors to monitor the healing progress, and it hasn’t healed or an infection is detected, more electrical stimulation is applied across the wound bed to accelerate tissue closure as well as reduce infection."
​
This made no sense... it is too vague on how it actually works. Either it's a fraud, the writer is completely clueless, or both.
NotAHost t1_ixujgqx wrote
Measuring impedance probably gives you an idea of the state of the surface of the skin. Way to conductive? Probably wet/pus. High impedance? Very dry, to some level of cracking/scabbing/etc. As far as temperature, I thought you could see wounds differently with a thermal sensor as well. Combine the data and it might help narrow down a possible window on the state of the wound, even if it's not as good as what we can assess with our eyes.
As far as electrical stimulation, it is much more difficult to say. I had a device about 10-15 years ago that was FDA approved and would send ultrasonic waves to a broken bone to promote healing. How effective was it? Well, I have my doubts, but 'FDA' approved I hope there was a double blind study in there. I doubt the electrical stimulation is done acoustically, but I can imagine that they found some sort of FDA device/study that had electrical stimulation, added the electrical stimulation to the bandaid, and said 'ah, see, it can heal!' and cite the source for the electrical stimulation so they aren't questioned about it.
At least, that is what I would do as a grad student.
screwhammer t1_ixuqqf5 wrote
FDA approves things as safe and does not seek further proof the thing works as described.
For example, FDA approved oscilococcinum as "safe". This doesn't mean oscilococcinum does anything for your health (it doesn't, homeopathy is a scam) - FDA just says it doesn't do anything bad for you.
NotAHost t1_ixv2lrm wrote
From my reading, with drugs they have to go through the CDER to be proven effective. There isn't a single approved homeopathic drug, it's just the ingredients that are labeled safe. These ultrasonic bone healing devices are classified as medical devices, so I assume they go through more scrutiny than only safety. A variation can be found here which also has a link to the Exogen system.
gmabarrett t1_ixv99jb wrote
For medical devices to be ‘approved’ by the FDA they have to demonstrate efficacy.
WexfordHo t1_ixvi3bd wrote
Homeopathy is regulated as food, medical devices are not and just like pharmaceuticals an efficacy trial is part of the deal.
thisischemistry t1_ixv6yx5 wrote
> Either it's a fraud, the writer is completely clueless, or both.
Well, they called the other bandages "hydrogen bandages" even though they are "hydrogel bandages". Either it's bad proofreading or another example of the writer being clueless.
> There are hydrogen bandages, and then this newly developed wireless smart bandage.
Not to mention it's a very short 2 paragraph "article" that consists of 3 sentences and a bunch of bad punctuation. It doesn't even give a link to the research on which it's reporting. Pretty much the definition of a useless post just designed to get clicks and serve ads.
All it took was a tiny bit of poking around and I found a much better article on this:
Wireless smart bandage promotes faster closure of wounds, enhances skin recovery
Mikeavelli t1_ixwnf6o wrote
Sounds similar to a TENS device. They're regarded s slightly better than pseudoscience, but only slightly.
oferchrissake t1_ixxfgwe wrote
There’s an awkward stage in R&D when you need more funding to level up, but you don’t want to give away the fundamentals, because that’s your IP. Presentations tend to be quite hands-wavy at this stage.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments