OBJECTIVE: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infection is a common cause of catheter loss and the main reason for PD drop-out. Exit-site infection (ESI) is a pathway to developing tunnel infection and peritonitis, hence rigorous exit-site care has always been emphasized in PD therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exit-site dressing vs non-dressing on the rate of PD-related infection. ♦
METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in prevalent PD patients at the Hospital Tuanku Jaafar Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, from April 2011 until April 2013. All patients were required to perform daily washing of the exit site with antibacterial soap during a shower. In the dressing group (n = 54), patients were required to clean their exit site using povidone-iodine after drying, followed by topical mupirocin antibiotic application to the exit site. The exit site was then covered with a sterile gauze dressing and the catheter immobilized with tape. In the non-dressing group (n = 54), patients were not required to do any further dressing after drying. They were only required to apply mupirocin cream to the exit site and then left the exit site uncovered. The catheter was immobilized with tape. The primary outcome was ESI. The secondary outcomes were evidence of tunnel infection or peritonitis. ♦
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients completed the study. There were a total of 12 ESI episodes: 4 episodes in 4 patients in the dressing group vs 8 episodes in 4 patients in the non-dressing group. This corresponds to 1 episode per 241.3 patient-months vs 1 episode per 111.1 patient-months in the dressing and non-dressing groups respectively. Median time to first ESI episode was shorter in the non-dressing than in the dressing group, but not significant (p = 0.25). The incidence of gram-positive ESI in both groups was similar. There were no gram-negative ESI in the non-dressing group compared with 2 in the dressing group. The peritonitis rate was 1 per 37.1 patient-month in the dressing group and 1 per 44.4 patient-months in the non-dressing group. Median time to first peritonitis episode was significantly shorter in the dressing group compared to non-dressing (p = 0.03). There was no impact of dressing disruptions in the occurrence of major PD catheter-related infection. ♦
CONCLUSION: Use of a non-dressing technique with only prophylactic topical mupirocin cream application is effective in preventing PD-related infection. The non-dressing technique is more cost-effective and convenient for PD patients, with fewer disposables.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised, observer-blinded study. Two keloids on the same site were randomly assigned to receive either daily topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing (Scar 1) or monthly IL triamcinolone injection (Scar 2). Efficacy was assessed using patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) at 4-weekly intervals up to 12 weeks. Dimension of keloid and adverse effects were also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 34 scars from 17 patients completed the study. There was significant improvement of POSAS at 12 weeks compared to baseline within each treatment group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in POSAS at 12 weeks between the two treatments. Keloid dimensions showed a similar trend of improvement by week 12 with either treatment (p = 0.002 in Scar 1, p = 0.005 for Scar 2). However, there was no significant difference between the treatment. In the IL triamcinolone group, all patients reported pain and 70.6% observed necrotic skin reaction. There was a significantly higher rate of adverse effects such as erythema (41.2 vs. 17.6%), hypopigmentation (35.3 vs. 23.5%), telangiectasia (41.2 vs. 17.6%) and skin atrophy (23.5 vs. 5.9%) documented in the IL triamcinolone group when compared to clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing.
CONCLUSION: Clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing is equally effective and has fewer adverse effects compared to IL triamcinolone. Hence, it may be used as an alternative treatment for keloid particularly in patients with low pain threshold, needle phobia and those who prefers home-based treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 231 OSMF patients were selected and treated with basic regime including topical corticosteroids, oral antioxidants and the icecream-stick exercise regime and allotted randomly to two equal groups A and B. Group-A patients were additionally given MED. Subgroups A1 and B1 patients with an inter-incisal distance (IID) 20-35mm were not given any additional therapy; subgroup A2 and B2 patients (IID 20-35mm) were treated additionally with intra-lesional injections. Subgroups A3 and B3 with IID<20mm were managed surgically. IID was measured at baseline and at 6 months recall. The change in IID measurements was calculated and statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukeys multiple post hoc analysis.
RESULTS: Average improvement in IID after six months of recall visits was observed to be 8.4 mm in subgroup-A1 (n-53) compared to 5.5 mm in B1(n-50) (p<0.01). The IID improvement in subgroup-A2 was found to be 9.3mm (n-46) compared to 5.1 mm in B2 (n-48) (p<0.01). In the surgery group, mouth opening improvement was observed to be 9.6 mm in subgroup A3 (n-18) compared to 4.8 mm for B3 (n-16) (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MED appears to be effective for increasing oral opening in OMSF patients in conjunction with local, injection and/or surgical treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: In total, 282 patients with oral submucous fibrosis were treated with topical corticosteroid and oral antioxidant and the ice-cream stick exercise regimen. Patients in subgroups A1, A2, and A3 were additionally given a new MED. Patients in subgroups A1 and B1 patients with interincisal distance (IID) of 20 to 35 mm were managed without any additional therapy; patients in subgroups A2 and B2 with IID of 20 to 35 mm were additionally managed with intralesional injections; and those in subgroups A3 and B3 with IID less than 20 mm were managed surgically. Subjective evaluation of decrease in the oral mucosal burning was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple post hoc analysis were carried out to present the results.
RESULTS: Patients using the MED, that is, subgroups A1, A2, and A3, showed reduction in burning sensation in the range of 64.8% to 71.1% and 27.8% to 30.9%, whereas in subgroups B1, B2, and B3, reduction in burning sensation ranged from 64.7% to 69.9% and from 29.3% to 38.6% after 6 months. The wo-way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant results in changes in initial VAS scores to 6-monthly VAS scores between MED users and non-MED users.
CONCLUSIONS: The MED helps to enhance the rate of reduction of mucosal burning sensation, in addition to the conventional ice-cream stick regimen, as an adjunct to local and surgical treatment.