| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 19
| Issue : 2 | Page : 99-102 |
|
|
Efficacy of different types of phototherapy units on neonatal hyperbilirubinemia
Krishna M Adhikari1, Sheila S Mathai2, Sathya M Moorthy3, Naveen Chawla4, Sandeep Dhingra1
1 Department of Pediatrics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India
2 Director, INM, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Executive Officer, INHS Asvini, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Pediatrics, SRM University Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sandeep Dhingra
Department of Pediatrics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune - 411 040, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jmms.jmms_59_17
|
|
|
Context: Phototherapy is the mainstay of treatment for about 3% of neonates in India who develop significant jaundice in phototherapy range. New devices have been introduced in the market over the past few years. Aims: To compare the efficacy of three types of phototherapy machines, namely Blue and White, Compact Fluorescent Lamp, and Light Emitting Diode type. Settings and Design: A non-randomized prospective interventional study conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Western India. Material and Methods: Ninety neonates with phototherapy range hyperbilirubinemia were assigned into three groups of 30 neonates each to receive phototherapy using one of the three types of phototherapy machines. Need for exchange transfusion, total serum bilirubin (TSB) at 24 hours post-phototherapy and side effect profile were recorded. Decision to stop phototherapy was based on acceptable reduction of serum bilirubin to below phototherapy range. Statistical analysis used: Medcalc® Version 11.4.2.0 Software was utilised. Comparison of mean TSB was done using one way ANOVA. P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Baseline parameters, TSB at 24 hour post-phototherapy and at the point of stopping phototherapy in the three groups was not significantly different. None of the babies required exchange transfusion or stopping of therapy. Transient rash was the most commonly observed side effect. Conclusions: The three types of phototherapy equipment studied were comparable in efficacy as measured by need for exchange transfusion and mean TSB values at 24 hrs post-phototherapy. The side effect profile was similar and was not significant enough to stop phototherapy.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
