| Literature DB >> 34414933 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Ma Yinglong Shexiang Hemorrhoids Cream combined with pearl powder on pain and complications in patients with severe pressure ulcers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34414933 PMCID: PMC8376359 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026767
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
General data (n/).
| Items | MY group (n = 39) | PP group (n = 39) | MP group (n = 39) | X2/F |
|
| Gender | 2.000 | .367 | |||
| Male | 25 | 16 | 20 | ||
| Female | 14 | 23 | 19 | ||
| Sites of ulcer | 1.000 | .606 | |||
| Chest | 8 | 10 | 6 | ||
| Back | 10 | 17 | 14 | ||
| Hips | 11 | 10 | 11 | ||
| Others | 10 | 12 | 8 | ||
| Underlying disease | 0.350 | .839 | |||
| Diabetes | 13 | 12 | 15 | ||
| Hypertension | 15 | 13 | 11 | ||
| Others | 11 | 14 | 13 | ||
| Area of ulcer, cm2 | 13.81 ± 2.45 | 12.16 ± 2.31 | 12.93 ± 2.11 | 1.700 | .093 |
| Time of wound formation, d | 24.87 ± 8.71 | 24.49 ± 7.49 | 25.13 ± 7.52 | 0.141 | .888 |
| Number of wounds | 21.45 ± 4.24 | 21.37 ± 3.97 | 22.64 ± 3.95 | 1.261 | .211 |
| Age, yr | 35.26 ± 6.28 | 35.13 ± 5.18 | 36.28 ± 5.37 | 0.771 | .443 |
| Course of disease, yr | 3.56 ± 0.18 | 3.52 ± 0.15 | 3.54 ± 0.12 | 0.577 | .565 |
Comparison of the clinical efficacy between three groups (n).
| Groups | n | Cure | Obvious effect | Effectiveness | Invalid | Effectiveness (%) |
| MY group | 39 | 8 | 17 | 8 | 6 | 84.62 |
| PP group | 39 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 8 | 79.48 |
| MP group | 39 | 15 | 13 | 9 | 2 | 94.87 |
| X2 | 1.422 | |||||
|
| .491 |
Comparison of the clinical index between three groups ().
| Groups | n | Healing time, d | Dressing change times | Dressing change time, min |
| MY group | 39 | 21.34 ± 3.64 | 25.16 ± 4.95 | 11.94 ± 3.25 |
| PP group | 39 | 24.15 ± 3.97 | 23.45 ± 3.65 | 10.47 ± 3.24 |
| MP group | 39 | 14.25 ± 1.41∗,† | 14.34 ± 3.24∗,† | 5.14 ± 2.48∗,† |
| F | 11.340 | 11.420 | 10.390 | |
| P | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Represented the significant difference compared with MY group (P < .05).
Represented the significant difference compared with PP group (P < .05).
Comparison of the VAS scores between 3 groups ().
| Groups | n | Before treatment | After treatment | t |
|
| MY group | 39 | 6.64 ± 1.12 | 4.56 ± 1.16 | 7.847 | <.001 |
| PP group | 39 | 6.75 ± 1.10 | 4.71 ± 1.21 | 9.645 | <.001 |
| MP group | 39 | 6.98 ± 1.08 | 2.12 ± 0.97∗,† | 20.364 | <.001 |
| F | 1.329 | 9.815 | |||
|
| .188 | <.001 |
Represented the significant difference compared with MY group (P < .05).
Represented the significant difference compared with PP group (P < .05).
Comparison of the scar formation between three groups [n(%)]/.
| Groups | n | Incidence of scar formation | Area of scar formation, cm2 |
| MY group | 39 | 12 (30.77) | 7.36 ± 1.25 |
| PP group | 39 | 13 (33.33) | 7.86 ± 1.68 |
| MP group | 39 | 5 (12.82)∗,† | 5.47 ± 1.37∗,† |
| X2/F | 9.743 | 6.364 | |
|
| .007 | <.001 |
Represented the significant difference compared with MY group (P < .05).
Represented the significant difference compared with PP group (P < .05).
Comparison of incidence of secondary effects between 3 groups (n).
| Groups | n | Wound infection | Wound hematoma | Wound effusion | Incidence (%) |
| MY group | 39 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10.25 |
| PP group | 39 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 15.38 |
| MP group | 39 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7.69 |
| X2 | 2.761 | ||||
|
| .251 |
Figure 1Typical case analysis. (A—E) referred to the ulcer wound before treatment, the first week of treatment, the second week of Treatment, the third week of treatment, and the 4th week of treatment.