VA Research and Development LOGO

Logo for the Journal of Rehab R&D

Volume 41 Number 2, March/April 2004
    Pages 139  — 146


Abstract - A comparison of four electrical stimulation types on Staphylococcus aureus growth in vitro

Harold L. Merriman, PhD, MPT; Chris A. Hegyi, MPT; Cheryl R. Albright-Overton, MPT; John Carlos, Jr, PhD, PT; Robert W. Putnam, PhD; Janet A. Mulcare, PhD

Master of Physical Therapy Program, Andrews University, and Department of Physiology and Biophysics,
Wright State University, Dayton, OH
Abstract — We evaluated the efficacy of common electrical stimulation (ES) types on bacterial growth in vitro using clinically relevant conditions. Four types of ES-continuous microamperage direct current (ľADC), high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC), low-voltage monophasic milliamperage pulsed current (LVMmAPC), and low-voltage biphasic milliamperage pulsed current (LVBmAPC)-were each applied to a separate set of culture plates containing Staphylococcus aureus for 1 h at 37 °C on 3 consecutive days. After ES treatment, the zone of inhibition surrounding each electrode was measured. Zone of inhibition measurements showed a significant inhibitory effect for continuous ľADC and HVPC (p < 0.05), but not for LVMmAPC and LVBmAPC. Differences in bacterial growth inhibition were not found for polarity and time. These data suggest that for infected wounds, HVPC and continuous ľADC treatments may have an initial bacterial inhibitory effect, which does not significantly change with subsequent treatments.
Key words: bacteria, electrical stimulation, wound healing.

 → Contents Page for Volume 39, No 5
 → HTML version of article
 → PDF version of the article