...
首页> 外文期刊>Lasers in surgery and medicine. >Ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser improves quality of life in patients with extensive burn scars: A nested case–control study
【24h】

Ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser improves quality of life in patients with extensive burn scars: A nested case–control study

机译:Ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser improves quality of life in patients with extensive burn scars: A nested case–control study

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background and Objectives Ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser (CO2‐AFL) for small‐area burn scar management shows encouraging outcomes. Few studies, however, focused on comprehensive outcomes following CO2‐AFL treatment for extensive burn scars. This study evaluated whether CO2‐AFL surgery improved the quality of life (QoL) for burn survivors with extensive hypertrophic scars. Methods A retrospective nested case–control study was initiated to analyze the efficacy of CO2‐AFL treatment for patients with large‐area burn scars. Patients with extensive burn scars (≥30% total body surface area?[TBSA]) were registered in our hospital from March 2016 to October 2018. Patients undergoing CO2‐AFL surgery were divided into CO2‐AFL group, and patients undergoing conventional surgery were matched in a 1:1 ratio as the conventional surgery group according to the burned area. The questionnaires were collected and followed up. The 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) and Burns Specific Health Scale–Brief (BSHS‐B) were the primary parameters. Secondary parameters included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), University of North Carolina “4P” Scars Scale (UNC4P), Patient Scars Assessment Scale for Patient (POSAS‐P), and Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions (DN4). Results 23 patients (55.96?±?21.59% TBSA) were included in CO2‐AFL group and 23 patients (57.87?±?18.21% TBSA) in conventional surgery group. Both the BSHS‐B total score (CO2‐AFL vs. conventional surgery: 115.35?±?29.24 vs. 85.43?±?33.19, p?=?0.002) and the SF‐36 total score (CO2‐AFL vs. conventional surgery: 427.79?±?118.27 vs. 265.65?±?81.66, p?
机译:抽象的背景和目标烧蚀部分二氧化碳激光器(CO2量AFL)小面积烧伤疤痕管理应承担的鼓励结果。综合结果后二氧化碳AFL广泛的烧伤疤痕治疗。评估是否二氧化碳量AFL手术提高了生活质量(QoL)烧伤幸存者广泛的肥厚性疤痕。嵌套回顾性病例对照研究开始分析二氧化碳量AFL的功效治疗患者大区域燃烧伤疤。全身表面积吗?(回溯))注册在我们医院从2016年3月到2018年10月。二氧化碳量AFL手术的患者划分二氧化碳量AFL组,患者接受传统的手术在1:1匹配集团根据常规手术燃烧区域。收集和跟进。健康调查(SF 36)应承担和伯恩斯特定卫生Scale-Brief (bsh B)应承担的主要参数。二次参数包括匹兹堡北大学睡眠质量指数(PSQI)卡罗莱纳的“4 p”伤疤规模(UNC4P),病人的伤疤病人评估量表(posa检测P)Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4)的问题。23例(55.96±? 21.59%回溯)都包括在内在二氧化碳量AFL集团和23例(57.87±? 18.21%回溯)组在常规手术。bsh作业B总分(AFL二氧化碳量比传统0.002 p = ?)和旧金山36总分(CO2 AFL vs。传统手术:427.79±? 118.27 vs。265.65 ? 0.001±81.66,p ? < ?)的二氧化碳量AFL组是高于传统吗手术小组。是低于传统吗手术小组在所有的追随者比较:PSQI总分(CO2 AFL vs。传统手术:7.70±? 3.74 vs。±12.26 ? 4.61,p = ? 0.001), posa p总得分(CO2量AFL与传统手术:26.48 ?±? 6.604.56和33.04±?,p ? < ? UNC4P总分0.001)(CO2量AFL与传统手术:5.57 ?±? 1.97和7.26±? 1.81,p = 0.004), ?和DN4得分(CO2量AFL与传统手术:3(2 - 5)和5(4 - 8), p = ? 0.004)。传统手术,整个手术疤痕二氧化碳量AFL显著改善身心健康作为广泛烧伤患者的生命质量伤疤。评估的疤痕,包括外表,疼痛、瘙痒和其他症状。

著录项

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