摘要：目的:探讨美宝创疡贴治疗压力性溃疡的临床效果。方法:对接诊的32例压力性溃疡患者,随机分为治疗组(G1)和对照组(G2)。治疗组(G1)采用美宝创疡贴对创面进行治疗,对照组(G2)运用湿润烧伤膏对创面进行治疗。结果:治疗组(G1)愈合时间明显短于对照组(G2)愈合时间,经统计学处理Ⅱ度压力性溃疡:P<0.05;Ⅲ度压力性溃疡:P<0.01;Ⅳ度压力性溃疡:P<0.01,有统计学意义。结论:美宝创疡贴治疗压力性溃疡,方法简便,实用性强,疗效显著。
摘要：Topical treatment for facial burns, Review question, We reviewed the evidence about the effects of topical (applied to the surface of the skin) treatments for healing burn wounds on the face or neck. We wanted to find out which treatments were most effective at healing these wounds and improving the appearance of scars, which is a particularly important issue in relation to facial burn injuries. We also wanted to find out how topical treatments affected the risk of complications such as infection and pain, and how they impacted on peoples' quality of life., Background, Burn injuries are an important health problem, and a major global cause of disability and disfigurement in both adults and children. Women and children in low‐income countries are at particular risk. Burns pose particular problems when they occur on the head or neck. The face is central to a person's identity and plays a vital role in communication. Other basic functions such as hearing, smell and breathing may become affected as a direct result of a facial burn. Topical treatments such as (non) antimicrobial creams and skin substitutes, are most commonly used to treat facial burns. We wanted to compare the effectiveness of these treatments to evaluate their benefits and harms., Study characteristics, In December 2019, we searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topical treatments for facial burns. RCTs are medical studies where the treatment or care people receive is chosen at random. This type of study design provides the most reliable health evidence about whether different approaches to treatment or care can make a difference. We found 12 studies that were suitable for inclusion in this review update, with 507 participants with mean ages ranging from 5.3 to 41.9 years. Three studies compared antimicrobials with non‐antimicrobials agents, two studies compared different antimicrobials, four studies compared skin substitutes with antimicrobials, while four studies compared a variety of topical treatments. One study contributed to two comparisons. Eight studies were small (fewer than 40 participants) and almost all studies were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding (where participants and evaluators may have known which group the participants were allocated to and interpreted effects differently)., Key results, Overall, there is mainly low to very low‐certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing or infection in people with facial burns. In addition, there is low to very low‐certainty evidence on the effects of the included interventions on need for surgery, pain, scar quality, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and side effects., All results were at high risk of bias and varied, which may have exaggerated the effects., Certainty of the evidence, Overall, the certainty of the evidence about the effectiveness of topical treatments for facial burns is low to very low. There is insufficient reliable evidence as to whether topical treatments improve outcomes for people with facial burns including improving wound healing, or rates of infection. Better trial design and reporting of these studies is required to contribute to evidence‐based burn care., How up to date is this review?, We searched for studies that had been published up to December 2019.
摘要：Purpose:? Acute radiation dermatitis is a common side-effect of radiotherapy in breast cancer and has a profound impact on patients’ quality of life, due to pain and discomfort. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of β-sitosterol (Mebo) ointment to trolamine (Biafine) cream for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiation therapy. Materials and Methods:? This is a prospective open-label randomized phase III study developed to assess the efficacy of 2 topical agents used for management of acute radiation dermatitis. Female breast cancer patients who needed a course of radiation therapy in our institution were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups 1 with Mebo ointment and 1 with Biafine cream. Both medications were applied twice per day during the whole period of treatment and skin reactions and related symptoms were assessed weekly during the entire course. Grading of skin reactions was done according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grading system. Results:? Between September 2015 and May 2017, a total of 161 patients were recruited for this trial. Mean age was similar for both groups (50.19±12.57 vs. 51.73±11.23, respectively, P=0.41). All other patients and treatment characteristics were similar in both groups, except for the use of boost (82.7% in the Biafine group vs. 36.7% in Mebo group, P=0.012). Analysis was done for reactions recorded before the beginning of the boost and for the entire course including the boost. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in grades 2 and 3 dermatitis between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of severe pruritus and severe local skin pain were both significantly reduced in the Mebo group (14.1% in Biafine vs. 2.9% in Mebo, P=0.016 for pruritus and 11.5% vs. 1.4%, respectively, P=0.02 for severe pain). Conclusions:? This study showed no difference between Mebo and Biafine in the incidence and severity of breast skin dermatitis during radiation therapy. However, the use of Mebo ointment was associated with decreased severe pruritus and pain which could positively affect patient comfort and quality of life.