These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison of the effectiveness and cost of treatment with humid environment as compared to traditional cure. Clinical trial on primary care patients with venous leg ulcers and pressure ulcers].
    Author: Capillas Pérez R, Cabré Aguilar V, Gil Colomé AM, Gaitano García A, Torra i Bou JE.
    Journal: Rev Enferm; 2000 Jan; 23(1):17-24. PubMed ID: 10788945.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The discovery of moist environment dressings as alternatives to the traditional treatments based on exposing wounds to air, opened new expectations for the care and treatment of chronic wounds. Over the years, these expectations have led to the availability of new moist environment dressings which have made it possible to improve the care provided to patients suffering this kind of wounds, as well as providing important reasons to weigh in terms of cost-benefit-effectiveness at the time of selecting which type of treatment should be employed. The lack of comparative analysis among traditional treatments and moist environment treatments for chronic wounds among patients receiving primary health care led the authors to perform an analysis comparing these aforementioned options of treatment on patients suffering venous leg ulcers or pressure ulcers. PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors designed a Randomized Clinical Trial involving patients receiving ambulatory care in order to compare the effectiveness and cost-benefit of traditional versus moist environment dressing during the treatment of patients suffering stage II or III pressure ulcers or venous leg ulcers. In this trial, variables related to effectiveness of both treatments, as well as their costs were analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: 70 wounds were included in this Randomized Clinical Trial, 41 were venous leg ulcers of which 21 received a moist environment treatment while 20 received traditional cure, the other 29 wounds were pressure ulcers of which 15 received moist environment dressings treatment and 14 received traditional dressings. No statistically significant differences were found among the defining variables for these lesions in either group under treatment. In the venous leg ulcer study group, the authors conclusions were an average of 18.13 days, 16.33 treatment sessions and a cost of 10,616 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with traditional treatment compared to an average of 18.22 days, 4.54 treatment sessions and a cost of 2409 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with moist environment dressings. In the pressure ulcers study group, the authors conclusions were an average of 12.18 days, 12.1 treatment sessions and a cost of 15,490 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with traditional treatment compared to an average of 7.12 days, 1.86 treatment sessions and a cost of 2610 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with moist environment dressings. COMMENTS: The results of this randomized clinical trial demosntrated that the moist environment treatment group was more effective and had a better cost-benefit ratio than the traditional treatment group in the treatment of pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers on patients cared for by nursing personnel in primary health care centers all of which agrees with publications consulted by authors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]