Chen Chiehfeng, Hou Wen-Hsuan, Chan Edwin S Y, Yeh Mei-Ling, Lo Heng-Lien Daniel
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University - Wan Fang Hospital, No. 111, Section 3, Hsing-Long Rd, Tapei, Taiwan, 11696.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 11;2014(7):CD009224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009224.pub2.
A pressure ulcer is defined as "an area of localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear". The use of phototherapy - that is, light (or laser) used as an adjuvant, non-surgical intervention, with the aim of having a therapeutic effect on healing - has increased recently.
To determine the effects of phototherapy on the healing of pressure ulcers.
In January 2014, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); and EBSCO CINAHL. We did not restrict the search by language or publication date.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of phototherapy (in addition to standard treatment) with sham phototherapy (in addition to standard treatment), another type of phototherapy (in addition to standard treatment) or standard or conventional treatment alone.
Two review authors assessed studies for relevance and design according to the selection criteria, extracted data and evaluated study quality. The authors made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. Disagreement was resolved by consensus and discussion with a third review author.
We identified seven RCTs involving 403 participants. All the trials were at unclear risk of bias. Trials compared the use of phototherapy with standard care only (six trials) or sham phototherapy (one trial). Only one of the trials included a third arm in which another type of phototherapy was applied. Overall, there was insufficient evidence to determine the relative effects of phototherapy for healing pressure ulcers. Time to complete healing was reported in three studies. Two studies showed the ultraviolet (UV) treated group had a shorter mean time to complete healing than the control group (mean difference -2.13 weeks (95% CI -3.53 to -0.72, P value 0.003)). One study reported that the laser group had a longer mean time to complete healing than the control group (mean difference 5.77 weeks; 95% CI -0.25 to 11.79). However, this result should be interpreted with caution, as these were small studies and the findings may have been due to chance. Three studies reported proportions of ulcers healed with a variety of results. One study reported a different outcome measure, and the other two studies had different treatment durations. These variations did not allow us to pool the studies and draw any conclusions as to whether phototherapy is effective or not. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies that compared phototherapy with control; the risk ratio for adverse events was imprecise. One study reported risk ratio (RR) 0.72 (95%CI 0.18 to 2.80). However, another study reported RR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.71 to 1.12) based on the number of events in each group, rather than the number of people with events. Among five studies reporting the rate of change in ulcer area, three studies found no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Pooling was not undertaken because of differences in outcome measures reported. The results were based on data from trials with unclear risk of bias for which generation of the randomisation sequence, concealment allocation and blinding of outcome assessors were unclear. No studies reported on quality of life, length of hospital stay, pain or cost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain as to the effects of phototherapy in treating pressure ulcers. The quality of evidence is very low due to the unclear risk of bias and small number of trials available for analysis. The possibility of benefit or harm of this treatment cannot be ruled out. Further research is recommended.
压疮被定义为“皮肤和/或皮下组织的局部损伤区域,通常位于骨隆突处,由压力或压力与剪切力共同作用所致”。光疗(即使用光(或激光)作为辅助性非手术干预手段,旨在对愈合产生治疗效果)的应用近来有所增加。
确定光疗对压疮愈合的影响。
2014年1月,我们检索了Cochrane伤口组专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE、Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引引文)以及EBSCO CINAHL。我们未对检索进行语言或出版日期限制。
比较光疗(除标准治疗外)与假光疗(除标准治疗外)、另一种光疗(除标准治疗外)或单纯标准或传统治疗效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位综述作者根据入选标准评估研究的相关性和设计,提取数据并评估研究质量。作者试图通过联系研究作者获取缺失数据。分歧通过与第三位综述作者达成共识和讨论来解决。
我们识别出7项RCT,涉及403名参与者。所有试验的偏倚风险均不明确。试验比较了光疗与仅标准护理(6项试验)或假光疗(1项试验)的效果。只有1项试验设有第三组,应用了另一种光疗。总体而言,尚无足够证据确定光疗对压疮愈合的相对效果。3项研究报告了完全愈合时间。2项研究显示紫外线(UV)治疗组的平均完全愈合时间短于对照组(平均差值 -2.13周(95%CI -3.53至 -0.72,P值0.003))。1项研究报告激光治疗组的平均完全愈合时间长于对照组(平均差值5.77周;95%CI -0.25至11.79)。然而,该结果应谨慎解读,因为这些是小型研究,结果可能是偶然因素导致。3项研究报告了不同愈合比例的溃疡情况,结果各异。1项研究报告了不同的结局指标,另外2项研究的治疗持续时间不同。这些差异使我们无法合并这些研究并就光疗是否有效得出任何结论。仅2项比较光疗与对照的研究报告了不良反应;不良事件的风险比不精确。1项研究报告风险比(RR)为0.72(95%CI 0.18至2.80)。然而,另一项研究根据每组事件数而非发生事件的人数报告RR为0.89(95%CI:0.71至1.12)。在5项报告溃疡面积变化率的研究中,3项研究发现两组之间无统计学显著差异。由于报告的结局指标不同,未进行合并分析。结果基于偏倚风险不明确的试验数据,随机化序列的产生、分配隐藏以及结局评估者的盲法均不明确。没有研究报告生活质量、住院时间、疼痛或成本方面的情况。
我们对光疗治疗压疮的效果非常不确定。由于偏倚风险不明确且可供分析的试验数量较少,证据质量非常低。不能排除这种治疗有益或有害的可能性。建议进一步开展研究。