| Literature DB >> 36101805 |
Xindi Wang1, Jing Wang2, Wenbo Xie3.
Abstract
In order to explore the clinical treatment of severe acne, this paper proposed the effect of CT technology combined with modified qinfan decoction on improving sores and promoting angiogenesis. From October 2016 to November 2017, 69 patients with severe acne treated in the first traditional Chinese medicine hospital of a city were selected for retrospective analysis. The 69 patients were randomly divided into control group and treatment group. There were 34 patients in the control group and 35 patients in the treatment group. Patients in the control group were treated with VSD. Patients in the treatment group were treated with qinfan decoction combined with VSD. Then, the total effective rate, the time of clinical symptom improvement, the time when the new granulation began to grow, and the time when the sore surface area was reduced by 1/2 were compared between the two groups. The results showed that after treatment, the total effective rate of the treatment group was higher than that of the control group. The time for the improvement of clinical symptoms, the time for the growth of new granulation, and the time for the reduction of the sore surface area by 1/2 were shorter than those of the control group, and the healing rate of the sore surface was higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Qinfan decoction combined with negative pressure sealing drainage technology has a significant effect on the treatment of severe acne and can promote its rehabilitation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36101805 PMCID: PMC9462981 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1649904
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Negative pressure sealing drainage technology.
Number of cases in the two groups.
| Groups | The number of cases |
|---|---|
| The treatment group | 35 |
| The control group | 34 |
Figure 2Comparison of treatment effects between the two groups.
Comparison of the healing degree.
| Group |
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The treatment group | 33 | 8 (24.2%) | 17 (51.5%) | 8 (24.2%) | 0 (0%) |
| The control group | 31 | 0 (0%) | 9 (29.0%) | 22 (71.0%) | 0 (0%) |
Note.P < 0.05, was statistically significant by the chi-square test.
Comparison of healing time of sore surface.
| Groups | n | Median (interquartile range) |
|---|---|---|
| The treatment group | 33 | 97 (81–112) |
| The control group | 31 | 123 (109–146) |
Recovery of patients in the two groups after treatment(x ± s).
| Groups | The number of cases | Clinical symptom improvement time (H) | New granulation begins to grow (H) | The area of sore surface is reduced by 1/2 (d) | Healing time (d) | Healing rate of sore surface (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The treatment group | 35 | 67.03±14.47 | 339.38±39.11 | 4.51±2.11 | 76.64±24.49 | 93.02 |
| The control group | 34 | 80.11±18.91 | 461.23±57.88 | 2.28±1.03 | 93.22±20.81 | 80.97 |
Comparison of blood routine, liver and kidney function, blood glucose, and C-reactive protein before and after treatment (x ± s).
| Safety index | Groups |
| Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White blood cell (10^9/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 11.05±12.71 | 7.07±1.53 | 7.332 | <0.001 |
| The control group | 31 | 11.45±2.56 | 7.28±1.74 | 7.492 | <0.001 | |
| Red blood cell (10^12/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 4.25±1.04 | 4.40±0.83 | -0.617 | 0.539 |
| The control group | 31 | 3.99±0.59 | 4.12±0.89 | -0.650 | 0.518 | |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 145.46±19.08 | 147.44±20.09 | -0.412 | 0.682 |
| The control group | 31 | 139.21±14.15 | 140.42±6.51 | -0.433 | 0.667 | |
| Aspartate aminotransferase (U/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 24.27±14.14 | 21.03±8.11 | 1.142 | 0.258 |
| The control group | 31 | 23.52±10.84 | 23.77±7.48 | -0.109 | 0.914 | |
| Alanine aminotransferase (U/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 24.54±10.79 | 20.97±6.75 | 1.613 | 0.112 |
| The control group | 31 | 22.51±7.86 | 20.80±7.15 | 0.895 | 0.374 | |
| Muscle matching (umol/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 68.30±15.86 | 66.84±12.30 | 0.416 | 0.679 |
| The control group | 31 | 69.45±16.17 | 63.86±14.03 | 1.452 | 0.152 | |
| Uric acid (mg/Dl) | The treatment group | 33 | 267.09±73.77 | 264.00±62.87 | 0.183 | 0.855 |
| The control group | 31 | 273.68±102.00 | 241.84±68.32 | 1.444 | 0.154 | |
| Blood sugar (mmol/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 6.68±2.22 | 5.94±0.95 | 1.760 | 0.083 |
| The control group | 31 | 7.78±2.90 | 6.79±1.93 | 1.590 | 0.117 | |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | The treatment group | 33 | 23.74±23.13 | 3.25±2.28 | 5.061 | <0.001 |
| The control group | 31 | 29.29±36.27 | 3.40±2.39 | 3.967 | <0.001 |
Note. After t-test, the white blood cells and C-reactive protein of the two groups were compared before and after treatment, P < 0.05, which was statistically significant; Red blood cells, hemoglobin, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, glutamic pyruvic transaminase, creatinine, uric acid, and blood glucose in the two groups were compared before and after treatment, P > 0.05, with no statistical significance.