Management and monitoring of chronic wounds is a major challenge. A tele-wound care comprising transmission of chronic wound (CW) images and a clinical protocol to home bound patients resulted in reductions of emergency visits, hospitalization, hospital utilization and cost [Rees, et al. 2007]. More than $25 billion is spent annually on the treatment of CWs [Hopf, H. W. 2006]. In the United States, the percentage of the aged population (age 65 and more) is projected to increase from 12.4% in 2000 to 19.6% in 2030 [U.S. Census Bureau. 2013]. The cost-effectiveness analysis is used to measure and compare the relative costs and results associated with various interventions as comprehensively as possible [Weinstein, M. C. et al. 1996]. The CW size can be determined using various methods have been developed and validated including wound depth [Coulomb, B. et al. 1986], surface area [Thomas, A. 2002] [William, P.B et al. 1997] length and width [Herbin, M. et al. 1993] and volume [Thomas, G. 2004]. The authors [Stremitzer, S. et al. 2007] were to investigate the spread and variety in CW judgment. The different tissues like granulation, fibrin, necrosis, CW size, depth, exudate and edges were judged and the therapeutical consequences were determined. Several CW assessment tools have been developed like pressure sore status tool (PSST) [Julien, M. et al. 2008], the sessing scale [Ferrell, B. A. et al. 1995], sussman wound healing tool (SWHT) [Sussman, C. et al. 2007], pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) [Plassmann, P. et al. 2013] and wound healing scale (WHS) [Julien, M. et al., 2008] to monitoring wound healing status.