医学新知杂志
醫學新知雜誌
의학신지잡지
JOURNAL OF NEW MEDICINE
2014年
5期
313-315
,共3页
瘢痕%硅酮敷料%压力疗法%效果
瘢痕%硅酮敷料%壓力療法%效果
반흔%규동부료%압력요법%효과
Scar%Silicone dressing%Pressure therapy%Efficacy
目的:比较自粘性硅酮敷料结合压力疗法及单纯压力疗法对抑制手术后切口疤痕增生的效果。方法采用随机对照试验,选取2010年3月~2012年12月在湖南省肿瘤医院造口伤口中心就诊的手术后切口疤痕增生时间小于2年的患者148例,观察组78例用自粘性硅酮敷料结合压力疗法,对照组70例单纯采用压力疗法。参照温哥华瘢痕判定标准对两个组治疗前后的瘢痕色泽、血管分布、柔软度、厚度进行评分,结果采用尼莫地平计算法。结果①3个月时复查情况:观察组78处瘢痕,10处痊愈(12.8%),18处显效(23.1%),28处有效(35.9%),22处无效(28.2%);对照组70处瘢痕,2处显效(2.9%),22处有效(31.4%),46处无效(65.7%)。②6个月时复查情况:观察组78处瘢痕,22处痊愈(28.2%),30处显效(38.5%),18处有效(23.1%),8处无效(10.3%);对照组70处瘢痕,6处痊愈(8.8%),16处显效(23.5%),20处有效(29.4%),28处无效(40.0%)。结论自粘性硅酮敷料结合压力疗法治疗手术后切口疤痕增生效果优于单纯压力疗法。
目的:比較自粘性硅酮敷料結閤壓力療法及單純壓力療法對抑製手術後切口疤痕增生的效果。方法採用隨機對照試驗,選取2010年3月~2012年12月在湖南省腫瘤醫院造口傷口中心就診的手術後切口疤痕增生時間小于2年的患者148例,觀察組78例用自粘性硅酮敷料結閤壓力療法,對照組70例單純採用壓力療法。參照溫哥華瘢痕判定標準對兩箇組治療前後的瘢痕色澤、血管分佈、柔軟度、厚度進行評分,結果採用尼莫地平計算法。結果①3箇月時複查情況:觀察組78處瘢痕,10處痊愈(12.8%),18處顯效(23.1%),28處有效(35.9%),22處無效(28.2%);對照組70處瘢痕,2處顯效(2.9%),22處有效(31.4%),46處無效(65.7%)。②6箇月時複查情況:觀察組78處瘢痕,22處痊愈(28.2%),30處顯效(38.5%),18處有效(23.1%),8處無效(10.3%);對照組70處瘢痕,6處痊愈(8.8%),16處顯效(23.5%),20處有效(29.4%),28處無效(40.0%)。結論自粘性硅酮敷料結閤壓力療法治療手術後切口疤痕增生效果優于單純壓力療法。
목적:비교자점성규동부료결합압력요법급단순압력요법대억제수술후절구파흔증생적효과。방법채용수궤대조시험,선취2010년3월~2012년12월재호남성종류의원조구상구중심취진적수술후절구파흔증생시간소우2년적환자148례,관찰조78례용자점성규동부료결합압력요법,대조조70례단순채용압력요법。삼조온가화반흔판정표준대량개조치료전후적반흔색택、혈관분포、유연도、후도진행평분,결과채용니막지평계산법。결과①3개월시복사정황:관찰조78처반흔,10처전유(12.8%),18처현효(23.1%),28처유효(35.9%),22처무효(28.2%);대조조70처반흔,2처현효(2.9%),22처유효(31.4%),46처무효(65.7%)。②6개월시복사정황:관찰조78처반흔,22처전유(28.2%),30처현효(38.5%),18처유효(23.1%),8처무효(10.3%);대조조70처반흔,6처전유(8.8%),16처현효(23.5%),20처유효(29.4%),28처무효(40.0%)。결론자점성규동부료결합압력요법치료수술후절구파흔증생효과우우단순압력요법。
Objective To compare the efficacy of controlling postoperative scars between self-adhesive silicone dressing combined with pressure therapy and simple pressure therapy. Methods 148 patients with postoperative scars less than 2 years from Mar. 2010 to Dec. 2012 were randomly assigned to experimental group(78 patients)and control group(70 patients). Self-adhesive silicone dressing combined with pressure therapy was performed in experimental group with simple pressure therapy in the control group. Color,vascularity,flexibility and thickness of scar were graded according to Vancouver Scar Judging Standard in both groups before and after treatment,with nimodipine calculation in the results. Results ①78 scars were in the experimental group,including 10 recovery(12. 8%),9 markedly effec-tive(23. 1%),28 effective(35. 9%)and 22 invalid(28. 2%)3 months after. 70 scars were in the control group,in-cluding 2 markedly effective(2. 9%),22 effective(31. 4%)and 46 invalid(65. 7%).②78 scars were in the experi-mental group,including 22 recovery(28. 3%),30 markedly effective(38. 5%),18 effective(23. 1%)and 8 invalid (10. 3%)6 months after. 70 scars were in the control group,including 16 markedly effective(23. 5%),20 effective (29. 4%)and 28 invalid(40. 0%). Conclusion Self-adhesive silicone dressing combined with pressure therapy is superior to simple pressure therapy in controlling postoperative scars.