ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between moisture healing therapy and multi-source therapeutic apparatus in the management of skin damage. MethodsFrom January 2012 to May 2014, 48 patients with 66 skin damages were divided into observation group (26 patients with 35 damages) and control group (22 patients with 31 damages) based on their informed consent and their own willing to choose the treatment methods. Patients in the observation group were treated with moisture dressings, while those in the control group received exposed treatment through multi-source therapeutic apparatus. Then, we compared the groups in terms of secondary infection rate, pain score, and healing time. ResultsThe secondary infection rate of the observation group was 2.9%, significantly lower than that of the control group (19.4%) (P<0.05). Grade Ⅱ and Ⅲ pain rate of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The damage healing time of the face, body and limbs was (10.0±1.3), (13.0±1.4), and (15±1.67) days, respectively, in the observation group, which was significantly shorter those in the control group [(16.0±2.6), (21.0±2.5), and (24.0±2.4) days] (P<0.05). ConclusionMoisture healing therapy can improve the eradication of necrotic tissue and dry gangrene, reduce the risk of infection and relieve pain of the patients as well as promote healing process and reduce the formation of scar by promoting regeneration of granulation and epithelium, which is worth clinical popularizing.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of nine different dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot (DF). MethodsDatabases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), Web of Science, EMbase, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized control trials (RCTs) about the effects of dressings for the DF from inception to April 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then network meta-analysis was performed using WinBugs 1.4.3 and Stata 13.0 softwares. ResultsA total of 29 RCTs involving 2 393 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that silver ion was superior to alginate, hydrogel, honey, sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Alginate was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Hydrogel was superior to povidone-iodine gauze; Honey was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Foam was superior to silver ion, alginate, hydrogel, honey, sterile gauze, povidone-iodine gauze and antibacterials gauze; Chitosan was superior to hydrogel, sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Antibacterials gauze was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze. All of the differences were statistically significant. Probability ranking according to SUCRA showed that there was a great possibility for foam and chitosan in the treatment of DF. ConclusionBased on the results of network meta-analysis and rank, foam dressing and chitosan dressing are superior to other dressings in the treatment of DF. More attentions should be made regarding comparisons directly of different dressing and reporting of cost-effective analysis.
Objectives To systematically review the preventive effects of different pressure relief devices. Methods Databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized control trials (RCTs) on the preventive effects of pressure relief devices for the surgical pressure sore from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed using gemtc package of R 3.5.0 software, Stata 13.0 and JAGS 3.4.0 software. Results A total of 20 RCTs involving 4 183 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that micropulse dynamic pad was superior to standard pad. The gel pad was superior to sponge pad. The standard pad and cotton gauze pad. The foam dressing was superior to gel pad. All of the differences were statistically significant. The results of the ranking probability plot suggested foam dressing as an optimal resolution for preventing surgical pressure sore. Conclusions According to the network meta-analysis and rankings, foam dressing is superior to other decompression devices in preventing surgical pressure sores.