Felicia Dinesen, Pernille Pape, Martin Risom Vestergaard, Lars Simon Rasmussen
{"title":"治疗皮肤化学烧伤的双氢可待因:系统回顾。","authors":"Felicia Dinesen, Pernille Pape, Martin Risom Vestergaard, Lars Simon Rasmussen","doi":"10.3390/ebj4010006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The incidence of chemical burns appears to be increasing. Diphoterine is an amphoteric, chelating, polyvalent solution used for the decontamination of chemical splashes. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the effect of diphoterine on chemical burns compared with water or no treatment. The primary endpoint was the depth of burn, and secondary outcomes included pain, duration of hospitalization, time to return to work, need for surgery, pH, and complications. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched using the terms \"Diphoterine\", \"Previn\", and \"\"Amphoteric solution\" AND \"burn\"\". A total of nine studies were included. One study evaluated the depth of chemical burns and found no difference between the diphoterine group and the control group. Four studies reported on pain, three of which found a more pronounced decrease in pain when using diphoterine compared to the control groups. Two studies found a significant neutralization of pH when using diphoterine. No differences were found for the remaining endpoints. Based on the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review reports no observed difference between diphoterine and water or no treatment on the depth of a chemical burn. Diphoterine appeared to be associated with less pain and to have a neutralizing effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":"29 1","pages":"55-68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571839/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diphoterine for Chemical Burns of the Skin: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Felicia Dinesen, Pernille Pape, Martin Risom Vestergaard, Lars Simon Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ebj4010006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The incidence of chemical burns appears to be increasing. Diphoterine is an amphoteric, chelating, polyvalent solution used for the decontamination of chemical splashes. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the effect of diphoterine on chemical burns compared with water or no treatment. The primary endpoint was the depth of burn, and secondary outcomes included pain, duration of hospitalization, time to return to work, need for surgery, pH, and complications. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched using the terms \\\"Diphoterine\\\", \\\"Previn\\\", and \\\"\\\"Amphoteric solution\\\" AND \\\"burn\\\"\\\". A total of nine studies were included. One study evaluated the depth of chemical burns and found no difference between the diphoterine group and the control group. Four studies reported on pain, three of which found a more pronounced decrease in pain when using diphoterine compared to the control groups. Two studies found a significant neutralization of pH when using diphoterine. No differences were found for the remaining endpoints. Based on the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review reports no observed difference between diphoterine and water or no treatment on the depth of a chemical burn. Diphoterine appeared to be associated with less pain and to have a neutralizing effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European burn journal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"55-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571839/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European burn journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj4010006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj4010006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
化学烧伤的发生率似乎正在上升。二氢柑橘碱是一种两性、螯合、多价溶液,用于消除化学品飞溅的污染。在这篇系统性综述中,我们旨在评估二氢苏氨酸与水或不处理相比对化学烧伤的效果。主要终点是烧伤深度,次要结果包括疼痛、住院时间、恢复工作时间、手术需求、pH 值和并发症。我们使用 "二氢苏氨酸"、"普瑞文 "和 "两性离子溶液 "及 "烧伤 "等词对 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 进行了系统检索。共纳入九项研究。其中一项研究对化学烧伤的深度进行了评估,结果发现双氢可待因组与对照组之间没有差异。四项研究报告了疼痛情况,其中三项研究发现,与对照组相比,使用二氢杨梅素后疼痛明显减轻。两项研究发现,使用地弗替林后,pH 值明显中和。其余终点均未发现差异。基于极低的证据确定性,本系统综述报告称,在化学烧伤的深度方面,未观察到地波特林与水或无治疗之间的差异。二氢苏氨酸似乎能减轻疼痛,并具有中和作用。
Diphoterine for Chemical Burns of the Skin: A Systematic Review.
The incidence of chemical burns appears to be increasing. Diphoterine is an amphoteric, chelating, polyvalent solution used for the decontamination of chemical splashes. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the effect of diphoterine on chemical burns compared with water or no treatment. The primary endpoint was the depth of burn, and secondary outcomes included pain, duration of hospitalization, time to return to work, need for surgery, pH, and complications. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched using the terms "Diphoterine", "Previn", and ""Amphoteric solution" AND "burn"". A total of nine studies were included. One study evaluated the depth of chemical burns and found no difference between the diphoterine group and the control group. Four studies reported on pain, three of which found a more pronounced decrease in pain when using diphoterine compared to the control groups. Two studies found a significant neutralization of pH when using diphoterine. No differences were found for the remaining endpoints. Based on the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review reports no observed difference between diphoterine and water or no treatment on the depth of a chemical burn. Diphoterine appeared to be associated with less pain and to have a neutralizing effect.