ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Dynamic Responses of Human Skin and Fascia to an Innovative Stimulation Device-Shear Wave Stimulation.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to mechanical stimuli such as pressure and stretching prompts the skin to undergo physiological adaptations to accommodate and distribute applied forces, a process known as mechanotransduction. Mechanotherapy, which leverages mechanotransduction, shows significant promise across various medical disciplines. Traditional methods, such as massage and compression therapy, effectively promote skin healing by utilizing this mechanism, although they require direct skin contact. This study introduces a novel contactless modality, Shear Wave Stimulation (SWS), and evaluates its efficacy compared to traditional massage in eliciting responses from human skin and fascia. Fifteen healthy volunteers received SWS, while another fifteen volunteers received massage. Tests of skin mechanical properties revealed significant enhancements in skin shear modulus for both methods, showing an increase of approximately 20%. Additionally, deformation analysis of ultrasound images showed distinct responses of the skin and fascia to the two stimuli. SWS induced extension in the dermis (∼18%), hypodermis (∼16%), and fascia (∼22%) along the X and Y axes. In contrast, massage compressed the skin layers, reducing the dermis by around 15% and the hypodermis by about 8%, while simultaneously stretching the superficial fascia by approximately 8%. The observed extension across the entire skin with SWS highlights its potential as a groundbreaking contactless approach for promoting skin healing. Furthermore, the differing responses in blood flow reaffirm the distinct stimulation modes of SWS and massage. These findings establish a foundation for future innovative skin therapy modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.