Submitted by PPG Medicina e Ci?ncias da Sa?de (medicina-pg@pucrs.br) on 2017-12-26T13:20:36Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
RENATO_FRANZ_MATTA_RAMOS_DIS.pdf: 2666471 bytes, checksum: d06c7c4e1ad077c16d8094c35b8872d0 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-12-29T10:24:06Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
RENATO_FRANZ_MATTA_RAMOS_DIS.pdf: 2666471 bytes, checksum: d06c7c4e1ad077c16d8094c35b8872d0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-29T10:33:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
RENATO_FRANZ_MATTA_RAMOS_DIS.pdf: 2666471 bytes, checksum: d06c7c4e1ad077c16d8094c35b8872d0 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-07-31 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Introduction: Cicatrization is a tissue response to damage, an inflammatory process or cell necrosis. The LED (Light Emitted Diode) is a topic phototherapy that can improve the wound healing process. Objective: To compare the cicatrization with and without the use of LED in patients underwent abdominoplasty. Methods: A double-blinded, non-controlled, non-randomized clinical trial. There were included patients who underwent abdominoplasty between 2014 and 2016 from the plastic surgery department. After 48 hours the LED treatment began, applying it only in the right side, every other day for ten sessions. The monofilament test was applied at days 2, 4, 6, 14 and 21. After one a six months, there were applied the Vancouver and Draaijers scales by two independent observers. At sixth month post-operative, there were taken standardized photographs of the scars and other two independent observers evaluated them. At twelve months post-operative, the patients responded two questionnaires about the aesthetic and sensitivity result of the scars. Results: There were 23 patients who underwent this surgery, 17 had complete evaluations and follow-up (lost of 26%). Only 14 (82%) patients had standardized photographs. After one year, just the 65% (11 patients) answered the questionnaires. When analyzing the final result of the scar at six months according the Vancouver and Draaijers scales, it was obtained a major numeric value to the left side (no treated side), it corresponded to a worst scar (p=0.003). It was obtained a less pain and uncomfortable sensation in all patients at sixth month post-operative with the monofilaments test, more frequently in the treated right side. According the standardized photographs, the right side was chosen as better scar aesthetically (p=0.008). Finally, according the questionnaires, there were no differences in the aesthetic (p=0.083) and sensitivity (p=0.564) results between the two sides. Conclusions: Cicatrization with the use of LED was better on the treated side according to the Vancouver and Draaijers scales and the standardized photographs. The monofilaments test showed a global improvement. The patients didn?t find differences on the aesthetic and the sensitivity results after one-year post-operative. / Introdu??o: A cicatriza??o ? uma resposta tecidual a um ferimento, a processos inflamat?rios ou at? mesmo ? necrose celular. O LED (Light Emitted Diode), ? uma fototerapia t?pica que pode melhorar o processo cicatricial. Objetivo: Comparar a cicatriza??o com e sem o uso do LED em paciente submetidas a abdominoplastia. M?todos: Ensaio cl?nico, duplo cego, n?o controlado e n?o randomizado. Foram inclu?dos pacientes submetidos a abdominoplastia entre 2014 e 2016 que compareceram ao servi?o de cirurgia pl?stica. Ap?s 48 horas da cirurgia, foi aplicado o tratamento com LED, a penas do lado direito, a cada 2 dias por 10 sess?es. Foi aplicado o teste de monofilamentos nos dias 2, 4, 6, 14, 21. Ao cumprir um m?s e seis meses da cirurgia, foram aplicadas as escalas de Vancouver e Draaijers por dois observadores independentes. Ao seis meses fotografias padronizadas das cicatrizes foram realizadas e avaliadas por outros dois observadores independentes. Aos 12 meses da cirurgia, os pacientes responderam um question?rio sobre o resultado est?tico e sensibilidade da cicatriz. Resultados: Foram realizadas 23 cirurgias, 17 pacientes com avalia??o e acompanhamento completo (perda de 26%); 14 (82%) tiveram fotografias padronizadas. Ao ano, 65% (11 pacientes) responderam os question?rios. Segundo a escala de Vancouver e Draaijers aos 6 meses; foi obtido um valor num?rico maior ao lado esquerdo (n?o tratado), ou seja uma cicatriz de pior apar?ncia (p=0.003). Com o teste de monofilamentos houve melhora na sensa??o de dor ou desconforto aos seis meses em todos os casos. Segundo as fotografias padronizadas, o lado direito foi escolhido como melhor resultado est?tico (p=0.008). Finalmente, segundo os question?rios, n?o houve diferen?a no resultado est?tico (p=0.083) nem sobre a sensibilidade da cicatriz ap?s um ano da cirurgia (p=0.564). Conclus?es: A cicatriza??o com o uso do LED foi melhor do lado tratado segundo as escalas de avalia??o da cicatriza??o e segundo as fotografias padronizadas. O teste de monofilamentos de avalia??o da dor neurop?tica mostrou melhora em todos os casos. As pr?prias pacientes n?o encontraram diferen?as na sua avalia??o subjetiva ao ano da cirurgia respeito ao resultado.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/7789 |
| Date | 31 July 2017 |
| Creators | Ramos, Renato Franz Matta |
| Contributors | Silva, Jefferson Luis Braga da |
| Publisher | Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Medicina e Ci?ncias da Sa?de, PUCRS, Brasil, Escola de Medicina |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS, instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, instacron:PUC_RS |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | 7620745074616285884, 500, 500, 500, 600, -224747486637135387, -969369452308786627, 2075167498588264571 |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds