背景:目前,增生性瘢痕的治疗方法有很多种,其中压力疗法和硅胶疗法是非常常见和标准的疗法,但是它们是单独使用还是组合使用仍然存在争议。因此,本系统综述的目的是比较压力疗法和硅胶疗法(PTS)联合治疗与单纯压力疗法(PT)治疗增生性瘢痕的疗效和安全性,为临床医生提供信息,以便他们做出更好的决策.
方法:通过检索PubMed,OvidMEDLINE,Embase,ScienceDirect,WebofScience,科克伦图书馆,Scopus,和谷歌学者数据库来评估疤痕分数(温哥华疤痕量表,VSS;视觉模拟刻度,VAS)和不利影响。
结果:我们筛选了1270篇文章,纳入了6个RCT,包括228例患者。我们发现身高(MD=0.15,95CI0.10-0.21,p<0.01)和柔韧性(MD=0.35,95CI0.25-0.46,p<0.01)有显著差异,这两项指标均显示PTS组优于PT组。其他方面的结果,如VSS,血管,色素沉着,VAS,两组的不良反应相似。
结论:在具有相似VSS和不良反应的肥厚性瘢痕的总体治疗效果上,PTS和PT之间没有显着差异,但是PTS可能对身高和柔韧性有潜在的好处。需要更多的样本量和合理的方法学质量的研究来证实我们的结论。证据级别IV本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一个级别的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
At present, there are many kinds of hypertrophic scar treatment methods, among which pressure therapy and silicone therapy are very common and standard therapies, but whether they are used alone or in combination is still controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic
review was to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of pressure therapy and silicone therapy (PTS) with pressure therapy alone (PT) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars to provide clinicians with information so that they can make better decisions.
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to assess scar scores (The Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS; Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and adverse effects.
We screened 1270 articles and included 6 RCTs including 228 patients. We found that height (MD = 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.21, p < 0.01) and pliability (MD = 0.35, 95%CI 0.25-0.46, p <0.01) had a significant difference, these two measures showed that the PTS group was superior to the PT group. Results in other aspects, such as VSS, vascularity, pigmentation, VAS, and adverse effects were similar between the two groups.
There was no significant difference between PTS and PT in the overall treatment efficacy of hypertrophic scars with similar VSS and adverse effects, but PTS might have potential benefits for height and pliability. Additional studies with larger sample size and sound methodological quality are needed to confirm our conclusions. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .