2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2016.03.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A retrospective study of EGF and ofloxacin drops in the healing of human large traumatic eardrum perforation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lou et al's institution also performed clinical studies of EGF in the repair of acute perforations and reported that EGF alone significantly improved the closure rate (91.4%–96.2% vs. 61.1%–85.2%, respectively) and shortened the closure time (8.9 ± 2.3 vs. 24.6 ± 9.7 days and 9.1 ± 3.9 vs. 20.6 ± 10.7 days) compared with spontaneous healing, with an average shortening of closure time by 2 weeks [ 42 , 45 ]. However, no differences were found between EGF alone and 0.3% ofloxacin eardrops in closure rate (93.5% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P = 0.19) or closure time (12.9 ± 5.3 vs. 13.3 ± 4.9 days, respectively, P = 0.84) [ 43 ]. In addition, there were no significant differences between EGF alone and Gelfoam patching in closure rate (97.8% vs. 86.7%, respectively, P = 0.039) or average closure time (11.12 ± 4.60 vs. 13.67 ± 5.379 days, P = 0.071) [ 44 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Lou et al's institution also performed clinical studies of EGF in the repair of acute perforations and reported that EGF alone significantly improved the closure rate (91.4%–96.2% vs. 61.1%–85.2%, respectively) and shortened the closure time (8.9 ± 2.3 vs. 24.6 ± 9.7 days and 9.1 ± 3.9 vs. 20.6 ± 10.7 days) compared with spontaneous healing, with an average shortening of closure time by 2 weeks [ 42 , 45 ]. However, no differences were found between EGF alone and 0.3% ofloxacin eardrops in closure rate (93.5% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P = 0.19) or closure time (12.9 ± 5.3 vs. 13.3 ± 4.9 days, respectively, P = 0.84) [ 43 ]. In addition, there were no significant differences between EGF alone and Gelfoam patching in closure rate (97.8% vs. 86.7%, respectively, P = 0.039) or average closure time (11.12 ± 4.60 vs. 13.67 ± 5.379 days, P = 0.071) [ 44 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, 26 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria, and only the remaining 47 articles were included in the analysis. Of the 47 papers, 18 were experimental studies of the effects of FGF2 or EGF in repair of acute or chronic perforations [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (Table 1), 16 were clinical studies in human acute perforations (FGF2 in 11 and EGF in 5) [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (Table 2), nine were clinical studies in human chronic perforations (FGF2 in eight and EGF in one) [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] (Table 3), and four papers examined the dose-and time-dependent effects of FGF2 or EGF on human and...…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…16 Jian-Yang et al too found a shorter closure time of traumatic perforations with EGF application in a retrospective review. 17…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, healing may be delayed by infection, not keeping the canal dry, malnutrition, thermal injury, co-morbidity, very large perforation etc. In such a case some researchers found EGR and the use of ciprofloxacin ear drop to be useful in healing of medium size perforations [10,11].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%