Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Combined with Vivaphototherapy on Blood Perfusion, Inflammatory Response, and Prognosis in Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To investigate the effect of extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) combined with water-filtered infrared-A (wIRA) therapy on pain, blood perfusion, and inflammatory response in burn patients. Methods. A total of 120 burn patients treated in our hospital from May 2019 to June 2021 were selected and randomly divided into observation group ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>n</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>60</a:mn> </a:math> ) and control group ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>n</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>60</c:mn> </c:math> ). The control group was treated with wIRA, and the observation group was treated with ESWT combined with wIRA. The hospitalization conditions of the two groups were observed; the visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain on the 1st, 7th, and 14th days of treatment in the two groups; the blood perfusion was compared between the two groups; the levels of cerebral neuropeptide (NPY), 5-serotonin (5-HT), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), serum intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), soluble-triggering receptor expressed myeloidcells-1 (sTREM-1), and soluble hemoglobin scavenger receptor (sCD163) were measured. Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) was used to evaluate the wound scar at 3 and 6 months after the end of treatment. Results. The wound healing rate in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group, and the wound healing time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter than that in the control group ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo><</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> ). On the 7th and 14th days of treatment, the VAS scores of the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>P</g:mi> <g:mo><</g:mo> <g:mn>0.05</g:mn> </g:math> ). On 1st, 7th, and 14th days of treatment, the blood perfusion volume in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>P</i:mi> <i:mo><</i:mo> <i:mn>0.05</i:mn> </i:math> ). The scar scores in the observation group at 3 months and 6 months after treatment were significantly lower than those in the control group ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>P</k:mi> <k:mo><</k:mo> <k:mn>0.05</k:mn> </k:math> ). After treatment, the levels of NPY, 5-HT, PGE2, CRP, IL-10, TNF-α, sICAM-1, sTREM-1, and sCD163 in the observation group were improved more than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant ( <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>P</m:mi> <m:mo><</m:mo> <m:mn>0.05</m:mn> </m:math> ). Conclusion. ESWT combined with wIRA therapy can effectively improve the hospitalization situation of burn patients, relieve pain, improve blood perfusion, reduce scar hyperplasia, reduce inflammation, and have a good therapeutic effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".