Journal of wound care · 2018
Clinical application of a 3D-printed scaffold in chronic wound treatment: a case series.
Клинический случайСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sun Haining, Lv Huayao, Qiu Fanghui, Sun Duolun, Gao Yue, Chen Ning, Zheng YongKe, Deng Kunxue, Yang Yaya, Zhang Haitao, Xu Tao, Ren Dongni
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This case series evaluates the safety and effectiveness of 3D-printed scaffold in chronic wounds. The scaffold is a composite of natural and synthetic materials, and can be prepared in the form of powder or membrane.
METHOD: We recruited patients with pressure ulcera (PU) and/or a diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). We used two methods: 3D-printed scaffolds alone, or 3D-printing powder mixed with platelet-rich fibrinogen (PRF). Clinicians and patients were asked to rate the scaffold's ease of application and comfort during use.
RESULTS: A total of five patients were recruited; four with a PU and one with a DFU. For the patient treated with the 3D-printed scaffold membrane (n=1), their PU healed in 28 days, and for patients treated with the 3D-printed scaffold powder (n=2), their PUs healed in 54 days. For the patients treated with the 3D-printing powder mixed with PRF (n=2), the patient with a PU healed in 11 days, and the patient with the DFU healed in 14 days. All clinicians rated the 3D-printed scaffold as 'easy' or 'very easy' to use, and patients rated their comfort during wear and at dressing change as 'good' or 'very good'.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 3D-printed scaffold was convenient to use, have the potential to improve wound healing rates, and provided a safe and effective way for treating chronic wounds.
METHOD: We recruited patients with pressure ulcera (PU) and/or a diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). We used two methods: 3D-printed scaffolds alone, or 3D-printing powder mixed with platelet-rich fibrinogen (PRF). Clinicians and patients were asked to rate the scaffold's ease of application and comfort during use.
RESULTS: A total of five patients were recruited; four with a PU and one with a DFU. For the patient treated with the 3D-printed scaffold membrane (n=1), their PU healed in 28 days, and for patients treated with the 3D-printed scaffold powder (n=2), their PUs healed in 54 days. For the patients treated with the 3D-printing powder mixed with PRF (n=2), the patient with a PU healed in 11 days, and the patient with the DFU healed in 14 days. All clinicians rated the 3D-printed scaffold as 'easy' or 'very easy' to use, and patients rated their comfort during wear and at dressing change as 'good' or 'very good'.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 3D-printed scaffold was convenient to use, have the potential to improve wound healing rates, and provided a safe and effective way for treating chronic wounds.