研究目的
To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP treatment in lymphedema and to compare the PRP with LLLT and CDP treatments.
研究成果
PRP might be an additional treatment option for lymphedema management, but more clinical trials are needed to confirm its efficacy.
研究不足
The diagnosis of secondary LEL was mainly clinical, without lymphoscintigraphy in all patients. Patients were not blinded to their own treatment, which could affect the results. The study did not use a sham laser or saline injection as a control.
1:Experimental Design and Method Selection:
A prospective randomized design was used. Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: PRP+CDP, LLLT+CDP, or CDP alone.
2:Sample Selection and Data Sources:
Patients aged 18–65 years with unilateral mild-moderate degree secondary LEL were included. Exclusion criteria included primary lymphedema, active infection, severe cardiac disease, malignity, hypertension, musculoskeletal problems affecting lower extremity, and incapacity to comprehend implications.
3:List of Experimental Equipment and Materials:
PRP preparation equipment, LLLT device (Laser BTL-4000, BTL Industries Ltd.), Moisture Meter-D (Delfin Technologies Ltd.), standard 1'', retractable, fiberglass tape.
4:Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow:
PRP was prepared by centrifuging anticoagulated, autologous venous blood. LLLT was administered in noncontact mode. CDP included manual lymphatic drainage, compression therapy, skin care, and therapeutic exercises.
5:Data Analysis Methods:
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.
独家科研数据包,助您复现前沿成果,加速创新突破
获取完整内容