Advances in skin & wound care · 2018
Scarring At Donor Sites After Split-Thickness Skin Graft: A Prospective, Longitudinal, Randomized Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Karlsson Matilda, Elmasry Moustafa, Steinvall Ingrid, Sjöberg Folke, Olofsson Pia, Thorfinn Johan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate scarring at split-thickness skin graft donor sites 8 years after surgery.
METHODS: At surgery, 67 patients were randomized to hydrofiber, polyurethane foam, or porcine xenograft treatment. Scars were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale.
RESULTS: Results showed significant differences in observed scar outcomes at donor sites, leaving the polyurethane foam-treated and the porcine xenograft-treated patients with the least satisfying scars. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the group treated with the xenografts had worse scores for overall opinion of the scar than did the other groups (P = .03), the most important factor being pigmentation. There was no correlation between duration of healing time and quality of the scar.
CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences among the groups, with the hydrofiber group being the most satisfied with the appearance of their scar.
METHODS: At surgery, 67 patients were randomized to hydrofiber, polyurethane foam, or porcine xenograft treatment. Scars were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale.
RESULTS: Results showed significant differences in observed scar outcomes at donor sites, leaving the polyurethane foam-treated and the porcine xenograft-treated patients with the least satisfying scars. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the group treated with the xenografts had worse scores for overall opinion of the scar than did the other groups (P = .03), the most important factor being pigmentation. There was no correlation between duration of healing time and quality of the scar.
CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences among the groups, with the hydrofiber group being the most satisfied with the appearance of their scar.