| Literature DB >> 31086506 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of corticosteroid ointment in hypertrophic scars prevention following Cesarean section.Entities:
Keywords: Cicatrix; Methyl prednisolonate; Topical administration; Wound healing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31086506 PMCID: PMC6500814 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.35.2.553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pak J Med Sci ISSN: 1681-715X Impact factor: 1.088
Descriptive statistics and p-values of the study.
| Total | Experiment group (n=30) | Control group (n=31) | p-values | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 31.28 ± 3.95 | 31.4 ± 4.23 | 31.16 ± 3.72 | 0.816 |
| BMI | 25.65 ± 2.58 | 24.7 ± 2.67 | 26.57 ± 2.16 | 0.004 |
| Baseline | ||||
| 0 | 3 (4.9%) | 2 (6.7%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0.080 |
| 1 | 33 (54.1%) | 20 (66,7%) | 13 (41.9%) | |
| 2 | 25 (41.0%) | 8 (26.7%) | 17 (54.8%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 3rd month | ||||
| 0 | 21 (34.4%) | 17 (56.7%) | 4 (12.9%) | 0.001 |
| 1 | 27 (44.3%) | 7 (23.3%) | 20 (64.5%) | |
| 2 | 13 (21.3%) | 6 (20.0%) | 7 (22.6%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 6th month | ||||
| 0 | 34 (55.7%) | 21 (%70.0%) | 13 (41.9%) | 0.163 |
| 1 | 13 (21.3%) | 4 (%13.3%) | 9 (29.0%) | |
| 2 | 12 (19.7%) | 4 (%13.3%) | 8 (25.8%) | |
| 3 | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (3.2%) | |
| p (intragroup) | 0.001 | 0.002 | ||
| Baseline | ||||
| 0 | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.255 |
| 1 | 18 (%29.5%) | 11 (36.7%) | 7 (22.6%) | |
| 2 | 42 (68.9%) | 18 (6.7%) | 24 (77.4%) | |
| 3 | 0 (%0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 4 | 0 (%0.0%) | 0 (0,0%) | 0 (0,0%) | |
| 3rd month | ||||
| 0 | 6 (9.8%) | 5 (16.7%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0.119 |
| 1 | 26 (42.6%) | 14 (46.7%) | 12 (38.7%) | |
| 2 | 22 (36.1%) | 7 (23.3%) | 15 (48.4%) | |
| 3 | 7 (11.5%) | 4 (13.3%) | 3 (9.7%) | |
| 4 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 6th month | ||||
| 0 | 16 (26.2%) | 11 (36.7%) | 5 (16.1%) | 0.149 |
| 1 | 24 (39.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | 14 (45.2%) | |
| 2 | 11 (18.0%) | 6 (20.0%) | 5 (16.1%) | |
| 3 | 9 (14.8%) | 2 (6.7%) | 7 (22.6%) | |
| 4 | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| p (intragroup) | 0.019 | 0.032 | ||
| Baseline | ||||
| 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.356 |
| 1 | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (3.35) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 2 | 17 (27.9%) | 7 (23.3%) | 10 (32.3%) | |
| 3 | 36 (59.0%) | 20 (66.7%) | 16 (51.6%) | |
| 4 | 7 (11.5%) | 2 (6.7%) | 5 (16.1%) | |
| 3rd month | ||||
| 0 | 14 (23.0%) | 12 (40.0%) | 2 (6.5%) | 0.015 |
| 1 | 23 (37.7%) | 7 (23.3%) | 16 (51,6%) | |
| 2 | 17 (27.9%) | 9 (30.0%) | 8 (25,8%) | |
| 3 | 6 (9.8%) | 2 (6.7%) | 4 (12.9%) | |
| 4 | 1 1.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.2%) | |
| 6th month | ||||
| 0 | 26 (42.6%) | 15 (50.0%) | 11 (35.5%) | 0.097 |
| 1 | 23 (37.7%) | 8 (26.7%) | 15 (48.4%) | |
| 2 | 10 (16.4%) | 7 (23.3%) | 3 (9.7%) | |
| 3 | 2 (3.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.5%) | |
| 4 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| p (intragroup) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Baseline | ||||
| 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.255 |
| 1 | 3 (4.9%) | 3 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 2 | 58 (95.1%) | 27 (90.0%) | 31 (100.0%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 3rd month | ||||
| 0 | 7 (11.5%) | 4 (13.3%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.092 |
| 1 | 16 (26.2%) | 10 (33.3%) | 6 (19.4%) | |
| 2 | 35 (57.4%) | 13 (43.3%) | 22 (71.0%) | |
| 3 | 3 (4.9%) | 3 (1.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| 6th month | ||||
| 0 | 7 (11.5%) | 4 (1.33%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0.882 |
| 1 | 32 (52.5%) | 15 (50.0%) | 17 (54.8%) | |
| 2 | 22 (36.1%) | 11 (36.7%) | 11 (35.5%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (00%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| p (intragroup) | <0.001 | 0.015 | ||
| Baseline | 8 (4 - 10) | 8 (4 - 9)a | 9 (6 - 10)a | 0.411 |
| 3rd month | 6 (0 - 10) | 4 (0 - 10)b | 6 (1 - 9)b | |
| 6th month | 4 (0 - 11) | 2,5 (0 - 11)b | 4 (1 - 10)b | |
| p (intragroup) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Satisfaction | ||||
| Unsatisfied | 3 (4.9%) | 2 (6.7%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0.663 |
| Slightly satisfied | 17 (27.9%) | 9 (30.0%) | 8 (25.8%) | |
| Satisfied | 31 (50.8%) | 13 (43.3%) | 18 (58.1%) | |
| Very satisfied | 10 (16.4%) | 6 (20.0%) | 4 (12.9%) |
BMI: body mass index; MVSS: modified Vancouver Scar Scale.
(1) Same letters show that there are no significant differences among repetitive measurements.
Fig.1The distribution of MVVS scores of experiment and control group.
Fig.2The distribution of satisfaction rates of experiment and control group.