Can Photobiomodulation improve healing of category II-III pressure ulcers in frail older adults? A quasi-experimental 24-month follow-up study.

PLoS OneOct 28, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchGeriatricsDermatologyOpen access

Marianne Degerman, Bo Christer Bertilson, Micael Öhman et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This quasi-experimental study compared adjunctive photobiomodulation with standard care for category II and III pressure ulcers in frail adults aged 70 years or older receiving municipal home healthcare. The intervention groups included 39 people with category II and 37 with category III ulcers; matched registry controls included 117 and 111, respectively. Photobiomodulation was associated with higher healing proportions and shorter healing times (p < 0.001). Median healing times were 33 versus 153 days for category II ulcers and 70 versus 195 days for category III ulcers, comparing intervention with control.

Key findings

  • Median healing time for category II ulcers was 33 days with photobiomodulation versus 153 days with standard care.
  • Median healing time for category III ulcers was 70 days with photobiomodulation versus 195 days with standard care.
  • The photobiomodulation groups had higher proportions of healed ulcers and significantly shorter healing times (p < 0.001).
  • Recurrence within 24 months after photobiomodulation was 0% for category II ulcers and 6,7% for category III ulcers.

Why it matters

Pressure ulcers can impose substantial burden on frail older adults, and prolonged healing may complicate care. These findings suggest photobiomodulation could be associated with faster healing in category II and III ulcers in a home-healthcare population. The comparison is clinically notable, but the non-randomised design means the results do not establish that the intervention caused the observed differences.

What to keep in mind

The quasi-experimental comparison used prospective intervention groups and matched registry-based controls rather than random allocation, so differences between groups may have influenced outcomes.

Source

Published in PLoS One. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Geriatrics

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.