Conectar
The combination of hyaluronic acid and iodine (Hyodine) has sparked interest in wound care and could have valuable applications in treating burn injuries. We aimed to provide valuable insight into the potential advantages, limitations, and implications of using Hyodine in burn wound management. We studied 25 male rats to assess the clinical outcomes and wound-healing effects of Hyodine. Each rat received a deep second-degree burn wound on their back using metal stamps. Subsequently, the rats were then randomly split into two groups. The first group was treated with a layer of Hyodine gel, while the second group received Vaseline. The burn sites were photographed on days 1, 7, 14, and 21 using a digital camera. After excision of the burn wounds, histopathology slides were stained and evaluated in terms of the degree of epithelialization, angiogenesis, inflammatory cells' infiltration, and collagen amount and arrangement. Despite a non-significant difference regarding the extent of burn wound area between intervention and control groups in the first day of experiment, the rats that were treated with Vaseline showed a significant decrease compared to those who received Hyodine in the second and third weeks (p = 0.02). On the other hand, epithelialization, pathology score, and collagen synthesis were significantly different between days 7, 14, and 21 of each group. However, collagen arrangement and neovascularization were only significantly different between days 7, 14, and 21 in Hyodine group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively). The Hyodine gel may offer beneficial outcomes in patients with a burn wound. Based on our findings, despite a non-significant difference in the extent of burn wound area, using Hyodine revealed a significant improvement in different histopathological variables including neovascularization, and collagen arrangement.
by Farzaneh Farrokhi, Zahra Ghorbani, Farid Farrokhi, Mahshid Namdari, Siavash Salavatian
Social media platforms are common means of sharing information, personal experiences, and lifestyle. They can also be utilized as cost-effective methods for individuals to acquire health information and promote oral health. The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the current literature on the interventions taken through social media for promoting lay people’s oral health. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023395005) followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for relevant articles published between 2012 and 2023. Data such as study design, sample size, follow-up duration, utilized social media platforms and main findings were extracted from the eligible studies. The quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated by the quality assessment tools for intervention studies recommended by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Out of the 1934 records identified in the initial search, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. These studies comprised seven randomized control trials, one field trial and two quasi-experimental. Various social media platforms, including Telegram, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp and Snapchat, were used for communication with patients. Some studies solely utilized social media interventions, while others combined online and traditional interventions. The quality assessment categorized 30% of the studies as “strong”, 50% as “moderate”, and the remaining as “weak”. The implementation of social media interventions positively influenced multiple aspects of oral health among the laypeople. Online platforms such as YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram can be effectively utilized to promote oral health among patients.The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of surgical wound infection and related factors in patients after long bone surgery. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Prevalence”, “Surgical wound infection”, “Surgical site infection” and “Orthopedics” from the earliest to the May 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. A total of 71 854 patients undergoing long bone surgery participated in 12 studies. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients who underwent long bone surgery reported in the 12 studies was 3.3% (95% CI: 1.5%–7.2%; I 2 = 99.39%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in male and female patients who underwent long bone surgery was 4.6% (95% CI: 1.7%–11.7%; p < 0.001; I 2 = 99.34%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.0%–6.3%; I 2 = 98.84%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with femur surgery sites reported in nine studies was 3.7% (95% CI: 2.1–6.4%; I 2 = 93.43%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in open and close fractures was 16.4% (95% CI: 8.2%–30.2%; I 2 = 95.83%; p < 0.001) and 2.9% (95% CI: 1.5%–5.5%; I 2 = 96.40%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 4.6% (95% CI: 2.3%–8.9%; I 2 = 81.50%; p < 0.001), 2.7% (95% CI: 1.2%–6.0%; I 2 = 83.82%; p < 0.001) and 3.0% (95% CI: 1.4%–6.4%; I 2 = 69.12%; p = 0.006), respectively. In general, the different prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing surgical treatment after long bone fracture may be caused by underlying factors (gender and co-morbidity) and fracture-related factors (surgery site and type of fracture).
FreshRSS 