📇 Rhumatologue ·
Chargement de la fiche…
Chargement de la fiche…
MonRhumato.fr utilise des cookies pour mesurer l'audience (statistiques) et améliorer le site. Aucune donnée de santé identifiable n'est jamais collectée. Politique de confidentialité.
Votre choix est conservé 13 mois (durée max CNIL). Vous pouvez le modifier à tout moment via Préférences cookies.
1 raison identifiée
Praticien-chercheur
5 articles scientifiques publiés — formation continue solide
✨ Génération du profil synthétique IA en cours…
Secteur de conventionnement non disponible (médecin hospitalier ou non présent dans l'Annuaire santé CNAM des libéraux conventionnés).
Données ANS publiques (Licence Ouverte 2.0) · Enrichissements MonRhumato 100 % opt-in · Toute personne référencée peut demander la suppression ou la rectification.
Lien Doctolib = recherche Google site:doctolib.fr (le 1er résultat est presque toujours le profil correct s'il existe).
Archives of dermatology · 2007
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2012
AbstractVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are the most prevalent chronic wounds in western countries with a heavy socioeconomic impact. Compression therapy is the etiologic treatment of VLU but until now no wound dressing has been shown to be more effective than another. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a new dressing in the management of VLU. Adult patients presenting a noninfected VLU and receiving effective compression therapy were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, double‐blind trial. The VLUs were assessed every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. The primary study outcome was the relative Wound Area Reduction (WAR, in %), and the secondary objectives were absolute WAR, healing rate, and percentage of wounds with >40% surface area reduction. One hundred eighty‐seven patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. Median WAR was 58.3% in the Lipido‐Colloid Technology‐Nano‐OligoSaccharide Factor (TLC‐NOSF) dressing group (test group) and 31.6% in the TLC dressing group (control group) (difference: −26.7%; 95% confidence interval: −38.3 to −15.1%; p = 0.002). All other efficacy outcomes were also significant in favor of the TLC‐NOSF dressing group. Clinical outcomes for patients treated with the new dressing are superior to those patients treated with the TLC dressing (without NOSF compound), suggesting a strong promotion of the VLU healing process.
Archives of dermatology · 2011
Source PubMed · Recherche par auteur (homonymes possibles, vérifier l'affiliation).
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2012 · Journal Article
Meaume S, Truchetet F, Cambazard F, Lok C, et al.
Archives of dermatology · 2011 · Journal Article
Senet P, Vicaut E, Beneton N, Debure C, et al.
The Journal of rheumatology · 1985 · Comparative Study
DeBure C, Fiessinger JN, Priollet P, Camilleri JP, et al.
Pathology, research and practice · 1984 · Journal Article
Camilleri JP, Fiessinger JN, Debure C, Bruneval P, et al.
Archives of dermatology · 2007 · Evaluation Study
Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, Martel P, et al.
Archives of dermatology · 2007 · Evaluation Study
Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, Martel P, et al.