Piskin Suleyman, Aksoz Turkan, Gorgulu Adnan
Trakya University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, 22030-Edirne, Turkey.
J Dermatol. 2004 Dec;31(12):989-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1346-8138.2004.tb00642.x.
Treatment of warts can involve medical and surgical methods. Infrared coagulation is a surgical method very rarely used in the treatment of warts. We planned an open-labeled prospective study to research the effect of infrared coagulation in the treatment of common warts, comparing it with electrocoagulation, and discussing its applicability as an alternative therapy regimen. Eighteen patients with common warts were included in this study. There were 49 warts of various sizes (1 mm to 1 cm) in these 18 patients. Twenty-seven warts were treated with infrared coagulation, and 22 warts were treated with electrocoagulation. Sixteen patients were treated with both infrared coagulation and electrocoagulation; two patients were treated with only infrared coagulation. The patients were followed-up for six months after treatment. Changes in sizes of warts, healing times, and cure rates were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. The mean healing time was 35.5 +/- 5.7 days with infrared coagulation and 32.9 +/- 4.0 days with electrocoagulation. There was not any significant difference between healing times (p > 0.05). Bacterial infection was seen on seven (31.8%) warts treated with electrocoagulation, but no side effects were seen with infrared coagulation. There was a significant difference between side effect rates in two groups (p < 0.01). Nine (33.3%) of the warts treated with infrared coagulation and seven (31.8%) of the warts treated with electrocoagulation recurred in the six-month follow-up period. The overall cure rates at the end of the follow-up period were 66.7% and 68.2% respectively. There was not any significant difference between the cure rates in the two groups (P > 0.05). We conclude that infrared coagulation is a safe and cheap method and should be kept in mind as an alternative modality for the treatment of common warts.
疣的治疗可采用医学和外科方法。红外线凝固术是一种极少用于治疗疣的外科方法。我们计划开展一项开放标签的前瞻性研究，以探究红外线凝固术治疗寻常疣的效果，将其与电凝术进行比较，并讨论其作为一种替代治疗方案的适用性。本研究纳入了18例寻常疣患者。这18例患者共有49个大小各异（1毫米至1厘米）的疣。27个疣采用红外线凝固术治疗，22个疣采用电凝术治疗。16例患者同时接受了红外线凝固术和电凝术治疗；2例患者仅接受了红外线凝固术治疗。治疗后对患者进行了6个月的随访。通过曼-惠特尼U检验比较疣大小的变化、愈合时间和治愈率。红外线凝固术治疗的平均愈合时间为35.5±5.7天，电凝术治疗的平均愈合时间为32.9±4.0天。愈合时间之间无显著差异（p>0.05）。电凝术治疗的7个（31.8%）疣出现了细菌感染，但红外线凝固术未出现任何副作用。两组的副作用发生率存在显著差异（p<0.01）。在6个月的随访期内，红外线凝固术治疗的疣中有9个（33.3%）复发，电凝术治疗的疣中有7个（31.8%）复发。随访期末的总体治愈率分别为66.7%和68.2%。两组的治愈率之间无显著差异（P>0.05）。我们得出结论，红外线凝固术是一种安全且廉价的方法，应作为治疗寻常疣的一种替代方式加以考虑。
