Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: addition of rectal therapies to biofeedback is more effective than biofeedback alone.

AIM: We designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of topical rectal therapy with biofeedback in treatment of solitary rectal ulcer compared to single biofeedback therapy. BACKGROUND: Biofeedback therapy is an appropriate treatment for patients with solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) but it seems that it is not effective alone. Topical medical therapies are supposed to have an additive role to biofeedback. METHODS: This randomized, controlled trial was conducted on 63 patients with SRUS. Patients were randomly enrolled into two groups of combination and single therapy. The patients in combination group (n=31) received biofeedback plus a topical therapy (an enema contained dexamethasone, sulfasalazine and bismuth) and the patients in single therapy group (n=32) were treated with biofeedback alone. RESULTS: Endoscopic responses to treatment in the combination and single groups were 80% and 50%, respectively (P<0.05). Clinical improvement in symptoms such as difficulty to evacuate, digitation to evacuate, feeling of incomplete evacuation, time to need to evacuation and life style alternation were significantly better in treated group by combination therapy than single therapy. Regarding to the mean total score based on all subjective parameters, the results were also significantly better in the treated group by combination therapy. CONCLUSION: Topical anti-inflammatory therapies in combination with biofeedback is an efficient treatment for patients with SRUS.

Xenoderm versus 1% silver sulfadiazine in partial-thickness burns.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of using lyophilised porcine skin (Xenoderm) compared with 1% silver sulfadiazine (SSD) in partial-thickness burns with regard to wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of dressings and doses of analgesics used (oral and injection). METHODS: A total of 78 burns patients were included in this randomised study; their burns were caused by scalds or flames. They had second degree burns and had a burn area of 1060% of total body surface area (TBSA). Thirty-seven patients were treated with daily washing, followed by topical application of SSD dressing (the SSD group) and 39 with a biological dressing, i.e. Xenoderm (the Xenoderm group). The differences were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, TBSA, cause of burn, and thickness of the burn or burn site. But there were significant differences regarding degree of wound infection, length of hospital stay, number of used dressings and given doses of analgesics. CONCLUSION: Xenoderm seems to be more effective than SSD dressing in terms of pain control, degree of wound infection, used wound dressings and length of hospital stay for partial-thickness burns. Prospective randomised studies are now necessary to compare possible reductions in the use of split thickness skin grafts and re-epithelialisation times.