Acta oto-laryngologica · 2016
Use of a platelet-rich fibrin membrane to repair traumatic tympanic membrane perforations: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gür Özer Erdem, Ensari Nuray, Öztürk Mehmet Türker, Boztepe Osman Fatih, Gün Taylan, Selçuk Ömer Tarık, Renda Levent
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate the effects of a platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane in the repair of traumatic tympanic membrane (TM) perforations; and (2) to compare the use of a PRF membrane with the paper patch technique with regard to recovery rates, healing time, and correction of the mean air-bone gap.
METHODS: A randomized, prospective analysis was performed for 60 patients who were treated for traumatic TM perforations using one of the two methods. Closure rate, speed of healing, and hearing gain were compared between the PRF (Group 1) and paper patch (Group 2) groups.
RESULTS: Closure was obtained in 28 (93%) perforations in Group 1 and 25 (83%) perforations in Group 2 (p > 0.05). On day 10, full closure of the TM was observed in 24 (80%) patients in Group 1 and 16 (53%) patients in Group 2 (p < 0.05). The improvement in the mean air-bone gap was 14.1 dB in Group 1 and 12.4 dB in Group 2 on post-operative day 45 (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with the paper patch method, PRF, a new method, provided more rapid healing with more successful audiological results, and with no requirement for a second procedure.
METHODS: A randomized, prospective analysis was performed for 60 patients who were treated for traumatic TM perforations using one of the two methods. Closure rate, speed of healing, and hearing gain were compared between the PRF (Group 1) and paper patch (Group 2) groups.
RESULTS: Closure was obtained in 28 (93%) perforations in Group 1 and 25 (83%) perforations in Group 2 (p > 0.05). On day 10, full closure of the TM was observed in 24 (80%) patients in Group 1 and 16 (53%) patients in Group 2 (p < 0.05). The improvement in the mean air-bone gap was 14.1 dB in Group 1 and 12.4 dB in Group 2 on post-operative day 45 (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with the paper patch method, PRF, a new method, provided more rapid healing with more successful audiological results, and with no requirement for a second procedure.