Esmailian Mehrdad, Azizkhani Reza, Jangjoo Aliakbar, Nasr Mehdi, Nemati Sirous
Emergency Medicine Research Center, Al-Zahra Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Adv Biomed Res. 2018 Mar 27;7:49. doi: 10.4103/abr.abr_148_16. eCollection 2018.
Several methods have been used in wound closure for traumatic wounds, but it is not clear that which of these methods has more safety and efficacy. This study aimed to compare scar width due to standard and current treatments in wound repair by suturing and method of wound restoration using wound tape in patients with traumatic ulcers.
This randomized clinical trial was done in ninety patients with wounds in the facial area. They were divided randomly into two groups of 45. The wounds in the first group were sutured, and wound tapes were used to wound closure in the second group. After 2 months, length and width of scar and results of life-size photography were recorded in a list, especially prepared for this purpose.
The mean age of the patients was 22.7 ± 12.9 years with 46 males (56.1%) and 36 females (43.9%). After 2 months, scars width in suture wound group was 2.9 mm and in wound tape group was 2.5 mm, with no statistically significant difference ( = 0.07). In patients with wound length of >20 mm, scars width was similar between groups and no significant differences was noted ( = 0.27), but in patients with wound length of <20 mm, scars width in wound tape group was significantly less than suture wound group (1.7 vs. 2.5 mm, respectively, = 0.01). Wound complications were not significantly different between the two groups.
Findings revealed that scar formation in wounds lower than 20 mm treated using wound tape was lower than suture, but for wounds between 20 and 50 mm were similar between wound tape and suture.
创伤性伤口的闭合方法有多种，但尚不清楚哪种方法更具安全性和有效性。本研究旨在比较创伤性溃疡患者通过缝合进行伤口修复时标准治疗与当前治疗所形成瘢痕的宽度，以及使用伤口贴进行伤口修复的方法。
本随机临床试验纳入了90例面部有伤口的患者。他们被随机分为两组，每组45例。第一组伤口采用缝合处理，第二组伤口使用伤口贴进行闭合。2个月后，将瘢痕的长度和宽度以及实际大小的照片结果记录在为此专门准备的列表中。
患者的平均年龄为22.7±12.9岁，其中男性46例（56.1%），女性36例（43.9%）。2个月后，缝合伤口组的瘢痕宽度为2.9mm，伤口贴组为2.5mm，差异无统计学意义（P = 0.07）。伤口长度>20mm的患者，两组间瘢痕宽度相似，差异无统计学意义（P = 0.27），但伤口长度<20mm的患者，伤口贴组的瘢痕宽度显著小于缝合伤口组（分别为1.7mm和2.5mm，P = 0.01）。两组间伤口并发症无显著差异。
研究结果显示，使用伤口贴治疗长度小于20mm的伤口时，瘢痕形成低于缝合治疗，但对于20至50mm之间的伤口，伤口贴和缝合治疗的瘢痕形成相似。
