The treatment of common warts with infrared coagulation

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridPiskin, Senol/0000-0002-8799-9472
dc.authoridPISKIN, SULEYMAN/0000-0002-0999-2267
dc.authorwosidPişkin, Süleyman/ABC-2562-2020
dc.authorwosidPiskin, Senol/F-3741-2019
dc.contributor.authorPiskin, S
dc.contributor.authorAksoz, T
dc.contributor.authorGorgulu, A
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T11:07:10Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T11:07:10Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractTreatment of warts can involve medical and surgical methods. Infrared coagulation is a surgical method very rarely used in the treatment of warts. We planned an open-labeled prospective study to research the effect of infrared coagulation in the treatment of common warts, comparing it with electrocoagulation, and discussing its applicability as an alternative therapy regimen. Eighteen patients with common warts were included in this study. There were 49 warts of various sizes (1 mm to 1 cm) in these 18 patients. Twenty seven warts were treated with infrared coagulation, and 22 warts were treated with electrocoagulation. Sixteen patients were treated with both infrared coagulation and electrocoagulation; two patients were treated with only infrared coagulation. The patients were followed-up for six months after treatment. Changes in sizes of warts, healing times, and cure rates were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. The mean healing time was 35.5 +/- 5.7 days with infrared coagulation and 32.9 +/- 4.0 days with electrocoagulation. There was not any significant difference between healing times (p>0.05). Bacterial infection was seen on seven (31.8%) warts treated with electrocoagulation, but no side effects were seen with infrared coagulation. There was a significant difference between side effect rates in two groups (p<0.01). Nine (33.3%) of the warts treated with infrared coagulation and seven (31.8%) of the warts treated with electrocoagulation recurred in the six-month follow-up period. The overall cure rates at the end of the follow-up period were 66.7% and 68.2% respectively. There was not any significant difference between the cure rates in the two groups (P>0.05). We conclude that infrared coagulation is a safe and cheap method and should be kept in mind as an alternative modality for the treatment of common warts.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1346-8138.2004.tb00642.x
dc.identifier.endpage992en_US
dc.identifier.issn0385-2407
dc.identifier.issue12en_US
dc.identifier.pmid15801263en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-12444329823en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage989en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1346-8138.2004.tb00642.x
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/21940
dc.identifier.volume31en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000226075800006en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherJapanese Dermatolgical Assocen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Dermatologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectInfrared Raysen_US
dc.subjectCoagulationen_US
dc.subjectElectrocoagulationen_US
dc.subjectWartsen_US
dc.subjectTherapyen_US
dc.titleThe treatment of common warts with infrared coagulationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu