Planta Med 2019; 85(18): 1557
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400119
Main Congress Poster
Poster Session 2
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

An open-labeled randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of Thai traditional medicine for pressure ulcer

S Chotchoungchatchai
1   Mahidol University,, Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmacy, 447 Sri-Ayutthaya Road, Bangkok, Thailand
,
O Krairit
2   Mahidol University,, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, 270 Rama VI Road, Bangkok, Thailand
,
P Tragulpiankit
3   Mahidol University,, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, 447 Sri-Ayutthaya Road, Bangkok, Thailand
,
S Prathanturarug
1   Mahidol University,, Department of Pharmaceutical Botany, Faculty of Pharmacy, 447 Sri-Ayutthaya Road, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2019 (online)

 

The traditional medicine with robust researches was paid more attention for alternative pressure ulcer (PU) treatments. There is a promising Thai Traditional Medicine (TTM) practice at Kabchoeng Hospital, Thailand. Honey and a Thai Herbal Oil preparation (THO) was used specific to TTM wound diagnosis. This study aimed to compare an efficacy of the TTM practice with a standard practice in PU treatment. To evaluate an efficacy of the practice, we incorporated TTM wound diagnosis into an open-labeled randomized controlled trial design. A TTM practice group received honey or THO depended on TTM wound diagnosis, using the Thai Traditional Medicine Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool (TTM-PUAT) [1]. A standard practice group received advance dressings, e.g. hydrogel, foam, and alginate. Study setting was home-based care in 7 hospitals in Thailand. Sixty-six patients with at least a PU, in stage 2-4 or unstageable [2], were allocated to two groups equally by minimization method. The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) scores was used to monitor 6-week PU healing [3]. PUSH scores of both groups reduced significantly comparing to the scores at baseline. However, PUSH score reduction was not difference significantly between the groups (p=0.284). The mean of PUSH scores reduction after 6 weeks was 2.58 ± 3.38 in the TTM practice group and 3.24 ± 3.49 in the standard practice group. In summary, TTM practice was effective similar to the standard practice for PU, in home-based care setting within 6-week period. This study supported the TTM practice to be an alternative treatment for PU.

 
  • References

  • 1 Chotchoungchatchai S. An efficacy of honey and Thai herbal oil preparation on pressure ulcer treatment using hybrid methodology. Mahidol university; 2018
  • 2 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: clinical practice guideline. 2 ed.. Perth: Cambridge Media; 2014: 40-41
  • 3 Stotts NA, Rodeheaver GT, Thomas DR, Frantz RA, Bartolucci AA, Sussman C. etal. An instrument to measure healing in pressure ulcers: development and validation of the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M795-799