RESUMO
The treatment of hypertrophic scars (HSs) is considered to be the most challenging task in wound rehabilitation. Conventional silicone sheet therapy has a positive effect on the healing process of HSs. However, the dimensions of the silicone sheet are typically larger than those of the HS itself which may negatively impact the healthy skin that surrounds the HS. Furthermore, the debonding and displacement of the silicone sheet from the skin are critical problems that affect treatment compliance. Herein, we propose a bespoke HS treatment design that integrates pressure sleeve with a silicone sheet and use of silicone gel using a workflow of three-dimensional (3D) printing, 3D scanning and computer-aided design, and manufacturing software. A finite element analysis (FEA) is used to optimize the control of the pressure distribution and investigate the effects of the silicone elastomer. The result shows that the silicone elastomer increases the amount of exerted pressure on the HS and minimizes unnecessary pressure to other parts of the wrist. Based on this treatment design, a silicone elastomer that perfectly conforms to an HS is printed and attached onto a customized pressure sleeve. Most importantly, unlimited scar treating gel can be applied as the means to optimize treatment of HSs while the silicone sheet is firmly affixed and secured by the pressure sleeve.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009). STUDY SELECTION: Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. RESULTS: Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assessment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.
