Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Mar 2:2022:8916076.
doi: 10.1155/2022/8916076. eCollection 2022.

Effect Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined with Vacuum Sealing Drainage on Serum Inflammatory Factors in Patients with Pressure Ulcer by Intelligent Algorithm-Based CT Image

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined with Vacuum Sealing Drainage on Serum Inflammatory Factors in Patients with Pressure Ulcer by Intelligent Algorithm-Based CT Image

Jingzhe Yang et al. Comput Math Methods Med. .

Retraction in

Abstract

This work was to explore the efficacy of intelligent algorithm-based computed tomography (CT) to evaluate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) in the treatment of patients with pressure ulcers. Based on the u-net network structure, an image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolution neural network (Dr-CNN) was proposed to denoise the CT images. A total of 84 patients who were hospitalized in hospital were randomly divided into group A (without any intervention), group B (PRP treatment), group C (VSD treatment), and group D (PRP+VSD treatment). Procalcitonin (PCT) was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) combined with immunofluorescence method, C-reactive protein (CRP) was detected by rate reflectance turbidimetry (RRT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) was detected by electrochemiluminescence method. The results showed that after treatment, 44 cases (52.38%) of pressure ulcers patients recovered, 24 cases (28.57%) had no change in stage, and 16 cases (19.04%) developed pressure ulcers. The pain scores of group D at 1 week (3.35 ± 0.56 points) and 2 weeks (2.76 ± 0.55 points) after treatment were significantly lower than those in group C (7.77 ± 0.58 points and 6.34 ± 0.44 points, respectively). The time of complete wound healing in group D (24.5 ± 2.32) was obviously lower in contrast to that in groups A, B, and C (35.54 ± 3.22 days, 30.23 ± 2 days, and 29.34 ± 2.15 days, respectively). In addition, the medical satisfaction of group D (8.74 ± 0.69) was significantly higher than that of groups A, B, and C (4.69 ± 0.85, 5.22 ± 0.31, and 5.18 ± 0.59, respectively). The levels of IL-6 and PCT in group D were lower than those in groups A, B, and C, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The average values of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) of the Dr-CNN network model were 37.21 ± 1.09 dB and 0.925 ± 0.01, respectively, which were higher than other algorithms. The mean values of root mean square error (MSE) and normalized mean absolute distance (NMAD) of the Dr-CNN network model were 0.022 ± 0.002 and 0.126 ± 0.012, respectively, which were significantly lower than other algorithms (P < 0.05). The experimental results showed that PrP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the inflammatory response of patients with pressure ulcers. PRP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the pain of dressing change for patients. Moreover, the performance model of image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolutional neural network was better than other algorithms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dr-CNN network model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dr-CNN network structure.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of noise reduction performance of the four algorithms. ((a) PSNR; (b) SSIM; (c) RMSE; (d) NMAD). Note: Statistically significant compared with other algorithms (P < 0.05).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of average running time of four algorithms.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of noise reduction effect of four algorithms.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of general clinical data of patients.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Treatment outcome statistics.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Preoperative and postoperative pain scores. (preoperative pain score in (a) and postoperative pain score in (b)). Note: The difference had statistical significance relative to other groups (P < 0.05).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Comparison of postoperative wound healing time. Note: Meant a significant difference compared to other groups (P < 0.05).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Comparison of serum inflammatory factors before and 20 days after operation. ((a) CRP, (b) PCT, and (c) IL-6). Note: The difference had statistical significance compared with other groups (P < 0.05).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Comparison of patient satisfaction.

References

    1. Shi C., Dumville J. C., Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: a network meta-analysis. PLoS One . 2018;13(2, article e0192707) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192707. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kottner J., Cuddigan J., Carville K., et al. Pressure ulcer/injury classification today: an international perspective. Journal of Tissue Viability . 2020;29(3):197–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.04.003.Epub. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collier M. Pressure ulcer prevention: fundamentals for best practice. Acta Medica Croatica . 2016;70(Suppl 1):3–10. PMID: 29087640. - PubMed
    1. Mervis J. S., Phillips T. J. Pressure ulcers: prevention and management. J Am Acad Dermatol . 2019;81(4):893–902. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.068.Epub. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lima Serrano M., González Méndez M. I., Carrasco Cebollero F. M., Lima Rodríguez J. S. Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in intensive care units: a systematic review. Med Intensiva . 2017;41(6):339–346. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2016.09.003.Epub. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances