Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2011
Efficacy, tolerability and patient benefit of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment versus surgical debridement: a randomized clinical study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Herberger Katharina, Franzke Nadine, Blome Christine, Kirsten Nathalie, Augustin Matthias
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Low-frequency ultrasound has been shown to be an alternative to surgical wound debridement (WD) to stimulate wound healing; however, few data are available.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, tolerability and benefit of both wound treatment methods.
METHODS: A monocentric prospective randomized-controlled clinical study assessing patient-reported outcomes and clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment (UAW) compared to WD.
RESULTS: In total, 67 patients were treated. Efficacy and tolerability were found to be good for both treatments, with 88% of UAW and 85.2% of WD patients experiencing more-than-minimal patient benefit. Quality of life improved significantly. Wound status improved and pain decreased in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Compared to the gold standard (i.e. WD), UAW displays the same high efficacy, comparable patient benefit and improved quality of life. Both procedures are equally suitable for highly beneficial guideline-based treatment of chronic wounds.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, tolerability and benefit of both wound treatment methods.
METHODS: A monocentric prospective randomized-controlled clinical study assessing patient-reported outcomes and clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment (UAW) compared to WD.
RESULTS: In total, 67 patients were treated. Efficacy and tolerability were found to be good for both treatments, with 88% of UAW and 85.2% of WD patients experiencing more-than-minimal patient benefit. Quality of life improved significantly. Wound status improved and pain decreased in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Compared to the gold standard (i.e. WD), UAW displays the same high efficacy, comparable patient benefit and improved quality of life. Both procedures are equally suitable for highly beneficial guideline-based treatment of chronic wounds.