Read the study, not just the percentage.
The manufacturer publication library includes conference posters and other materials. A poster is not automatically a peer-reviewed comparative trial. Study design, sample size, additional treatments, and follow-up matter when interpreting a result.
These summaries do not establish that every patient will experience a particular result or that the device is superior to another approach. Review the complete source and current instructions with the clinical team.
Venous leg ulcer experience: 15 patients.
A 2025 poster by Mary E. Hanley describes a small clinical experience involving 15 patients with venous leg ulcers. Fourteen reported a preference for sonic debridement under a protocol that included topical lidocaine.
The sample is small and the poster does not establish a randomized comparison between treatment groups. The reported preference is not a universal pain-reduction claim.
Before tissue-based therapies: eight cases.
A 2023 poster by Horn and colleagues reports eight patients with varied ulcer types. The authors describe one-to-four-minute procedures, fluorescence-based bioburden observations, subsequent tissue-based therapies, and short follow-up.
This small uncontrolled series cannot isolate the device contribution to healing from the additional therapies. Its observed procedure times are not a performance guarantee.
Questions for your clinical review.
Exact outcome
Distinguish preference, pain scores, fluorescence signals, tissue adherence, and wound healing. They answer different questions.
Study design
Check the comparator, patient selection, additional treatments, follow-up duration, and how outcomes were measured.
Applicable instructions
Request the current instructions for the handpiece and selected head. Evidence summaries do not replace device labeling or clinical training.