| Objective:1. Analyze the present situation and influence of the Condyloma Acuminatum and HPV virus’s affection to people.2. Comparing these two kinds of detection methods recognizes the advantage and disadvantage offering reference object and methods to clinical practice.Object and Methods:Using the method of comparing the convenience sampling and clinical cases, patent, coming to Liao Cheng Hospital, with the aim of curing the Condyloma Acuminatum would be detected under the HPV type or PCR-DNA. Combining the clinical symptom and detection result select the suitable patient divided by two groups in accordance with registration order in hospital. After that, applying ALA Photodynamic Therapy and Chinese Traditional Medicine Paiteling respectively to the patient in a comparative study.(1)ObjectAll the252patients in our research chosen from People’s Hospital of Liao Cheng city conform to the criteria of<The standard of ministry of health in Condyloma Acuminatum’ diagnosis and management (WS253-2003)>(2)MethodThe techniques of reverse dot blot (RDB) and fluorescence probe would be used to check chosen patent’s HPV type and the DNA quantification. Which followed by dividing the patient into two groups at random,156patients in one group adopting ALA Photodynamic Therapy,96patients in another group, adopting Paiteling therapy. Keeping this therapy one to four courses get the cervical secretion, vaginal secretion or interface mixture of the wart body mucous membrane with the research method of tracing observation over half of the year. Having qualitative or quantitative investigation once again and comparing the testing result before and after treat and relapse situation to conclude to a better method.The aspects of comparison projects concluding data’ general analysis, PCR detection result and Using statistic software SPSS13.0apply important project t into the relevant statistic analysis which would adopt to sample T test, Chi-square and Fisher test, it would make sense in terms of statistic, if P<0.05.ResultsThe following findings are the result of omparison of different test and treat ways(1)252patents aged from70to2years old including186male and66male patents198get married, average age is35.(2)(2)163patents are affected by HPV virus single gene subtype, multiple-gene subtype89, high-risk subtype are162including75high subtype affected patents. In the end, there are90low-risk patents.(3) The detection rate of PCR-reverse dot blot (RDB) is59.63%, while fluorescence probe’s is45.88%both of them, to some extent, make sense to the test. The method of Reverse dot blot (RDB), however, inclining to detect the specific amount of HVP virus when it is copying itself, is quantitative test. The fluorescence probe test inclining to test the specific HPV subtype is qualitative test, both of them do not make any sense in terms of statistic.(4) The group with the treat of Paiteling recover62patents with total number of96. this kind of treat is valid to29patents, valid rate is94.79%/(91/96)while5patent failed to make any response to this. In the group of ALA Photodynamic Therapy, with total number of156, the treat is valid to132patents and invalid to9patents. The valid rate is84.6%(132/156), with all this figures considered, it is can be concluded that Paiteling is better than ALA-PDT for x2=2.35,P=0.014<0.05.(5) with tracing observation of six months,5patents relapsed with the treat of Paiteling, relapsing rate is5.21%while13relapsed with cure of ALA Photodynamic Therapy, relapsing rate is8.33%. The figure of x2=3.63, P=0.013<0.05proves Paiteling is better one in resisting the recrudesce.(6) when it comes to treating efficiency, Paiteling recovered the patent18days in average, while ALA-PDT taking53days. (7) Considering the cost, patents and relatives can have better acceptance in P, cost2500in average, compare to ALA-PDT which cost4000in average.(8) Taking the acceptance and flexibility in consideration, Paiteling can be used by patents themselves, while ALA Photodynamic Therapy have to be operated by professional doctor.(9) In term of its social application and promotion, Paiteling do not need any huge equipment with easy training on staff while ALA Photodynamic Therapy which exorbitantly costly is hard to promote.(10) According to patent’s recovery, both of them have less trauma with fast recovery and in incapable of leading to other syndrome.(11) When it comes to the time of curing, Paiteling have less than1hour treat time while ALA’s is more than4.5hours, which is inconvenient to the patent.(12) Comparing the traditional treat ways, the method of Paiteling has5.21%recrudesce rate, while ALA-PDT’s is8.33%, both of them are better to the traditional ways such as freezingConclusionThe non-invasive treatments to thoroughly destroys virus though PDT or Paiteling are the most effective methods by now, which has advantages of low recurrence rate, low cost and little pain for patients. According to the study in this article, both methods have almost the same effects, and Paiteling appears to be slightly better. Moreover, compared with ALA-PDT, the Pateling treatment is more conveniently to use. Patients may apply by themselves safely with mild local reactions and no systemic side effects. Patients have certain autonomy to choose the application according to their actual situation. |
