SPP vs TcPO2 Clinical Comparison

Peer-reviewed clinical studies demonstrate that Skin Perfusion Pressure (SPP) is superior to Transcutaneous Oxygen (TcPO2/TCOM) for wound healing prediction, PAD detection, and overall diagnostic accuracy.

93.2%
SPP Wound Healing Prediction
vs 63.9% for TcPO2
80%
Faster Test Time
6.7 min vs 35.4 min
$3,751
Annual Savings
Per testing location
Head-to-Head Clinical Comparison
MetricSPPTcPO2/TCOMAdvantage
Wound Healing Prediction93.2%63.9%SPP +29.3%
PAD Detection Rate96.2%61.5%SPP +34.7%
Mean Test Time6.7 min35.4 minSPP 80% faster
Sensitivity90%66%SPP +24%
Annual Testing Cost$904$4,655SPP saves $3,751
Annual Test Time39.67 hrs204 hrsSPP saves 164 hrs

Source: SAWC 2009 - Bailey, Schechter et al.; Wounds 2009 - Lo et al.; UHMS 2008 - Schechter, Bailey et al.

Technical Capability Comparison
CapabilitySPPTcPO2
Works with Calcified ArteriesYesYes
Works with EdemaYesNo
Works with CallusYesNo
Can Test Plantar FootYesNo
Works with Anemia/HypoxiaYesNo
Calibration RequiredNoYes
Contact Gel RequiredNoYes
Heated Electrodes RequiredNoYes (42-44°C)
Labor IntensiveNoYes
Training RequiredMinimalExtensive
Post-Revasc ResultsImmediate3-4 weeks
Published Clinical Evidence

SAWC 2009 - Bailey, Schechter et al.

"TcPO2 and SPP Evaluation: A Direct Comparison of Technologies for the Assessment of Wound Healing and Vascular Disease Detection"

Prospective, IRB approved, 100 patient investigation comparing SPP/PVR vs TCOM/ABI.

Conclusion: 80% reduction in test time for SPP/PVR. SPP/PVR was more accurate in predicting wound healing potential than TCOM/ABI.

Wounds 2009 - Lo et al.

"Prediction of Wound Healing Outcomes in 100 Patients Using Skin Perfusion Pressure and Transcutaneous PO2"

Prospective, single center study to determine accuracy of SPP vs TcPO2 for wound assessment.

Conclusion: SPP had significantly higher accuracy (p<0.01) than TcPO2 (92% vs 67%) in predicting healing outcomes. TcPO2 is not reliable outside oxygen chamber.

Journal of Vascular Surgery 2008 - Yamada et al.

"Clinical Reliability and Utility of Skin Perfusion Pressure Measurement in Ischemic Limbs: Comparison with Other Noninvasive Diagnostic Methods"

403 limbs from 211 patients with arteriosclerosis obliterans. Half had diabetes or dialysis.

Conclusion: SPP had no anatomical limitations. TcPO2 could not be measured in 23 limbs due to intolerable pain. SPP is objective method for assessing PAD severity and wound healing.

Am J Kidney Disease 2006 - Okamoto et al.

"Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease is More Prevalent in Patients with Hemodialysis: Comparison with Multidetector-Row CT"

Compared ABI, TBI, TcPO2, and SPP in hemodialysis patients against CT for PAOD detection.

Conclusion: SPP was the most useful tool with respect to both sensitivity and specificity for early detection of PAOD in this population.

Wounds 2008 - Tsuji et al.

"Importance of Skin Perfusion Pressure in Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia"

69 ischemic limbs with foot ulcers/gangrene in 47 patients. Studied SPP for predicting wound healing and selecting reconstructive procedures.

Conclusion: SPP increases noted immediately after revascularization vs TcPO2 which takes 3-4 weeks due to edema. SPP useful for planning minimal invasive amputation.
Why SPP is Superior for Diabetic Patients

Patients with diabetes have the highest risk for developing PAD, CLI, and amputation. They often have below-the-knee and pedal arterial disease resulting in very different levels of perfusion in different parts of the foot. SPP addresses the limitations of other tests:

  • ABI limitations: Macrocirculatory tests alone can significantly misdiagnose PAD or under-diagnose disease severity in diabetic patients due to arterial calcification.
  • TcPO2 contraindication: Cannot be performed on plantar foot due to thick skin/callus. Diabetic foot ulcers are usually plantar, and the posterior tibial artery (most likely to occlude) supplies this area.
  • SPP advantage: No anatomical restrictions. Can test any angiosome including plantar foot for complete assessment.