| 郝清鑫,郭呈森,陈思远.复方倍他米松局部注射联合超脉冲CO2点阵激光对增生性瘢痕的疗效研究[J].中国烧伤创疡杂志,2020,(5):377~380. |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 复方倍他米松 局部注射 超脉冲CO2点阵激光 增生性瘢痕 温哥华瘢痕量表 视觉模拟评分 |
| 英文关键词:Compound Betamethasone Local injection Fractional ultra pulse CO2 laser Hypertrophic scar Vancouver scar scale Visual simulation score |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1715 |
| 全文下载次数: 4145 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 对比分析复方倍他米松局部注射联合超脉冲CO2点阵激光治疗增生性瘢痕的临床疗效。方法 选取2017年4月至2019年4月原阳县人民医院收治的150例增生性瘢痕患者作为研究对象，并按照治疗方法将其分为倍他米松治疗组、激光治疗组及联合治疗组，每组50例，其中倍他米松治疗组患者单独采用复方倍他米松局部注射治疗，激光治疗组患者单独采用超脉冲CO2点阵激光治疗，联合治疗组患者采用复方倍他米松局部注射联合超脉冲CO2点阵激光治疗，对比分析3组患者治疗前及治疗结束后温哥华瘢痕量表（Vancouver scar scale，VSS）评分与视觉模拟评分法（visual simulation score，VAS）评分以及治疗过程中不良反应发生情况。结果 治疗结束后3组患者VSS评分对比，联合治疗组＜激光治疗组＜倍他米松治疗组，且组间两两对比，差异均具有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）；VAS评分对比，联合治疗组＝倍他米松治疗组＜激光治疗组，且组间两两对比，倍他米松治疗组与联合治疗组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但与激光治疗组对比差异均具有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）；治疗过程中，倍他米松治疗组患者不良反应发生率为8.0%，激光治疗组患者不良反应发生率为14.0%，联合治疗组患者不良反应发生率为8.0%，3组组间两两对比差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。结论 与单独采用复方倍他米松局部注射及超脉冲CO2点阵激光治疗相比，两者联合应用更有利于增生性瘢痕的消除及疼痛的缓解。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To analyze the clinical efficacy of the combined application of local injection of compound Betamethasone and fractional ultra pulse CO2 laser in the treatment of hypertrophic scar. Methods: One hundred and fifty patients with hypertrophic scar admitted to Yuanyang People’s Hospital between April, 2017 and April, 2019, were selected as subjects to be divided, according to different treatment protocols, into Betamethasone group, laser group and combined group, 50 patients each group. In the Betamethasone group, patients were treated simply with the local injection of compound Betamethasone, patients in the laser group were simply treated with fractional ultra pulse CO2 laser, while patents in the combined group were treated with the local injection of compound Betamethasone combined with fractional ultra pulse CO2 laser. The Vancouver scar scale (VSS) and visual simulation score (VAS) before and after the treatment, and the occurrence of adverse reactions during the treatment course were analyzed and compared among the three groups. Results: After treatment, the VSS scores in the three groups were compared and the results were the combined group < the laser group < the Betamethasone group, and the pairwise comparisons of VSS scores between every two of the three groups all showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05); while the comparison of VAS score among the three groups presented the combined group = the Betamethasone group < the laser group, and the comparison of VAS scores between the Betamethasone group and the combined group showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05), while there was statistically significant difference between the Betamethasone group and the laser group (P < 0.05). During the treatment course, the incidences of adverse reactions were 8.0%, 14.0% and 8.0% respectively in the Betamethasone group, the laser group and the combined group, and the pairwise comparisons between every two of the three groups showed no statistically significant difference (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with the simple application of the local injection of compound Betamethasone or fractional ultra pulse CO2 laser, the combined application of the both is more conducive to the elimination of hypertrophic scar and pain relief. |
|
|
|
|
