...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >Negative pressure therapy in diabetic foot wounds.
【24h】

Negative pressure therapy in diabetic foot wounds.

机译:糖尿病足伤口的负压治疗。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

David Armstrong and Lawrence Lavery (Nov 12, p 1704)1 should be commended for their effort to assess the effect of negative pressure therapy on foot wounds in diabetes, since there is currently little evidence to support this technique in the management of wounds. However, I have concerns about the study methods and the conclusion that the treatment is safe and effective. The manufacturer of the vacuum-assisted closure device has provided financial support for the study and its main investigators. Clearly, robust methods are of particular importance if a study is not blinded and a conflict of interest potentially exists.Regarding foot wounds, despite randomisation of patients by the sponsor, wound duration was on average 50% greater in the control group than in the treatment group (1-8 months [SD 5-9] vs 1-2 months [3-9])- Was this difference significant? Wounds of longer duration are more prone to infections, including osteomyelitis, and could take longer to heal. How was healing assessed? Was wound depth similar between the two groups?Regarding a second assessment of complete re-epithelialisation of wounds, were the photographs assessed independently?
机译:大卫·阿姆斯特朗(David Armstrong)和劳伦斯·拉弗里(Lawrence Lavery)(11月12日,第1704页)1为评估负压疗法对糖尿病足伤口的作用而做出的努力应受到赞扬,因为目前尚无证据支持这种技术在伤口处理中的应用。但是,我对研究方法和治疗安全有效的结论感到担忧。真空辅助封闭装置的制造商为这项研究及其主要研究人员提供了经济支持。显然,如果研究不盲目且可能存在利益冲突,那么健壮的方法尤为重要。关于足部伤口,尽管赞助者随机分配了患者,对照组的伤口持续时间平均比治疗组长了50%组(1-8个月[SD 5-9]与1-2个月[3-9])-这种差异是否显着?持续时间较长的伤口更容易受到感染,包括骨髓炎,并且可能需要更长的时间才能治愈。如何评估康复?两组之间的伤口深度是否相似?关于伤口完全重新上皮化的第二次评估,是否对照片进行了独立评估?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号