Journal of pediatric surgery · 2019
Is it better to reduce the intervals between pulsed dye laser treatments for port wine stains in children? Laser Doppler Imaging based study.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El Ezzi Oumama, Tessa Mermod, Pierluigi Ballabeni, de Buys Roessingh Anthony S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pulsed Dye Laser (PDL) is the treatment of choice of Port Wine Stains (PWS). Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of this treatment. In a previous study, we demonstrated that LDI allows an objective evaluation. The purpose of this study is to investigate if reducing the delay between two laser sessions could improve the clinical outcome.
METHOD: This prospective study was conducted from September 2015 to November 2017. Three Laser sessions were performed every month in twenty patients with PWS. The PWS response was assessed by LDI after each session and at the end of the third one. The present study was compared to the first one.
RESULTS: The LDI confirmed the efficacy of PDL treatment with an average blanching rate of 26.7 %. The response is statistically significant after each session. When we compare both studies, there is an average decrease in vascularization of 0.42 for the first study and 0.50 for the present one.
CONCLUSION: This study allows us to validate the use of LDI for the numerical evaluation of PDL effect on PWS in children. However, we cannot confirm that reducing the interval between laser sessions could improve therapeutic outcomes.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Treatment Study Level II (Prospective Comparative Study).
METHOD: This prospective study was conducted from September 2015 to November 2017. Three Laser sessions were performed every month in twenty patients with PWS. The PWS response was assessed by LDI after each session and at the end of the third one. The present study was compared to the first one.
RESULTS: The LDI confirmed the efficacy of PDL treatment with an average blanching rate of 26.7 %. The response is statistically significant after each session. When we compare both studies, there is an average decrease in vascularization of 0.42 for the first study and 0.50 for the present one.
CONCLUSION: This study allows us to validate the use of LDI for the numerical evaluation of PDL effect on PWS in children. However, we cannot confirm that reducing the interval between laser sessions could improve therapeutic outcomes.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Treatment Study Level II (Prospective Comparative Study).