Publication year: 2018
Introduction:
The healing and maintenance of tissue integrity of the venous ulcer (VU) consists of a cascade of cellular and molecular events that interact with each other for tissue regeneration to occur. Its treatment depends on the association of different mechanisms through the application of topical products and the use of compressive therapy. Despite technological advances related to the supply and development of technological coverage, there is still no effective impact on the incidence of these injuries, which has high financial costs and damages to patients. Currently, Low-level Laser Therapy (LLLT) has been used to accelerate the cicatricial process in different lesions thanks to its biostimulatory and anti-inflammatory action, which allows its use in VU. In order to guide the choice of the most appropriate treatment, however, an accurate evaluation of the lesion is essential. Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) has the results which allow the evaluation of the effect of treatment through clinical indicators. Objective:
To compare the effect of adjunctive treatment of LLLT with the conventional treatment in tissue repair of venous ulcer in patients at the Outpatient Nursing clinic. Method:
Randomized clinical trial performed at a Brazilian university hospital. The sample consisted of 40 patients with VU, equally randomized to the Control Group (CG) and Intervention Group (GI). Patients were followed up at a weekly nursing visit for 16 weeks or until the lesion was healed. GC received conventional treatment with topical dressings and compressive therapy, while GI was added to TLBP as an adjuvant. An energy dose of 1 to 3 J / cm 2 was used with an AsGalaser laser, with a wavelength of 660 nm. The application occurred punctually at the edges and scanning method in the lesion bed. The wound healing process was evaluated in both groups by eight clinical indicators of Wound healing:
second intention (1103): Decreased wound size, Scar formation, granulation, Exudate, Fow wound odor, Macerated skin, Surrounding skin erythema and Periwound edema. The evaluation also occurred from six outcome indicators Tissue integrity:
skin and mucous membranes (1101): Thickness, Hydration / Skin flaking, Abnormal Pigmentation, Pruritus, Pain and Necrosis. The analysis took into account the 5-point Likert scale, in which 1 corresponds to the worst score and 5 to the most desirable, using the Generalized Estimating Equation. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (15-0634). Results:
The mean age was 64.55 ± 11.69 years for GC and 63 ± 12.25 for GI. In the CG, 17 (85%) patients were male, whereas in GI female patients prevailed with 11 (55%) patients, generating the only statistically significant difference (p = 0.019) between the groups. The white color (16-80%) and schooling at the level of functional illiterate (15-75% in CG and 12- 63,2% in IG) prevailed in the groups. Regarding wound time, 40% of patients in both groups have one to five years. Eighty-two wounds were evaluated, 39 of GC and 43 of GI, resulting in 1066 consultations, of which 551 occurred in GC and 515 in GI. Regarding wound healing:
second intention (1103), GC started with a mean score of 2.87 ± 0.35 and, at the end of the study, presented 4.21 ± 0.60, while GI started with 2.67 ± 0.46 and reached 4.46 ± 0.47 (p = 0.025). There was a statistically significant difference in the comparison between the groups in four of the eight indicators:
Granulation (p = 0.010), Decreased wound size (p = 0.010), Scar formation (p = 0.034) and Exudate (p = 0.011). Regarding the Outcome Tissue integrity:
skin and mucous membranes (1101), GC started with a mean score of 3.74 ± 0.38 and reached 4.27 ± 0.46 in the last visit, while the GI started with 3.43 ± 0.42 and reached 4.29 ± 0.44. In 11 the analysis of the six indicators of the NOC result, a statistically significant difference was observed in three of them: Abnormal pigmentation (p = 0.008), Thickness (p = 0.010) and Hydration / Skin flaking (p = 0.015) in the comparison between groups. Regarding the conventional treatment, grouped in action class, the CG prevailed enzymatic debridement (17.8%), dressings for infection control (52.8%) and topical agents for maintenance of the humid environment (52.7%). In the GI, dressings for exudate control (9.0%), topical agents for edge protection (31.3%) and perlesional skin (104.2%) emerged. In LLLT the red laser was used, with the mode of irradiation sweeping predominantly in the ulcer bed (97.7%), with an average time of one minute, in the power of 30mW. The mode of point irradiation was used at the edges of the lesion, with a predominance (61.8%) of 10 points, at a distance of one cm each, with energy of 1J/cm2. This mode was also used in the perilesional area, however, with an energy of 21J / cm2. Conclusion:
LLLT is an effective adjuvant treatment for tissue regeneration of VU and confirms the clinical indicators of NOC outcome.
