A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The validity and safety of multispectral light emitting diode (LED) treatment on grade 2 pressure ulcer: Double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a light-emitting diode (LED) device with four wavelengths for treating grade 2 sacral pressure ulcers (PUs).
  • A total of 38 patients participated in a double-blinded clinical trial, comparing the LED device's effects with a sham device over four weeks.
  • Results indicated that while LED treatment showed promise for reducing wound size in cases without eschar, overall evidence did not conclusively support its efficacy in treating grade 2 PUs.

Article Abstract

Purpose: The management of pressure ulcers (PUs) poses challenges due to their chronic nature and the lack of established conservative treatment methods. In this clinical trial, our objective was to examine the validity and safety of using a light-emitting diode device contained four wavelengths in the treatment of grade 2 sacral PUs.

Method: A total of 38 patients were randomly assigned to two groups: sham device (Sham) and experimental device (LED) group. The treatment sessions were conducted over a period of four weeks, with a frequency of three times per week. The study was conducted in a double-blinded manner. The study assessed the primary validity by measuring wound size and re-epithelialization after 0 and 4 weeks. Secondary evaluations included epidermal regeneration, collagen density, and immunological markers. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse reactions throughout the trial.

Result: The presence of eschar was found to have a significant impact on wound healing. Sham consisted of 15 wounds without eschar, while LED had nine. After treatment in without eschar situation, the post-treatment size of wounds in Sham was 13.80 ± 20.29%, while it was 3.52 ± 6.68% in LED. However, there was no significant difference (p = 0.070). And analysis of epidermal thickness showed a significant increase in LED (495.62 ± 327.09 μm) compared to Sham (195.36 ± 263.04 μm) (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: While LED treatment had a potential for wound reduction in PUs without eschar, we could not uncover evidence to support the efficacy of LED treatment in grade 2 PUs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343461PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305616PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

led treatment
16
treatment grade
12
validity safety
8
clinical trial
8
led
7
treatment
7
sham
5
safety multispectral
4
multispectral light
4
light emitting
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!