论文部分内容阅读
目的研究对比不同植皮方式修复大面积烧伤创面的临床疗效。方法 120例大面积烧伤患者,随机分为Meek皮组、微粒皮组和邮票皮组,各40例。分别按照Meek皮、微粒皮、邮票皮三种方式进行修复。术后随访2年,测定记录患者一期愈合率、康复情况、成活率、死亡率、愈合时间和1%烧伤面积(1%TBSA)治疗费用,比较组间差异。结果邮票皮组成活率最高,愈合时间最短,一期愈合率高,1%TBSA治疗费用最低,但康复效果差;微粒皮组愈合时间较短,但成活率低,1%TBSA治疗费用最高,一期愈合率低,康复效果差,死亡率高;Meek皮组成活率较高,康复效果好,死亡率低,但愈合时间长。三组间成活率、愈合时间、1%TBSA治疗费用、一期愈合率、死亡率、康复率比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论不同植皮方式用于大面积烧伤创面修复的临床效果各不相同,各有优缺点,临床上应该根据患者的自身情况选择不同的植皮方式。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of different skin graft methods in repairing large area burn wounds. Methods A total of 120 patients with extensive burns were randomly divided into Meek skin group, microdermabrasion group and stamp-skin group, 40 cases in each. In accordance with Meek skin, particle skin, stamp skin three ways to repair. The patients were followed up for 2 years. The primary healing rate, rehabilitation, survival rate, mortality, healing time and treatment area of 1% burn area (1% TBSA) were recorded and compared between groups. The results showed that the highest survival rate, the shortest healing time, the first-stage healing rate and the lowest treatment cost of 1% TBSA were achieved in the stamps, but the recovery was poor. The healing time was shorter, the survival rate was lower and the cost of 1% TBSA was the highest. The primary healing rate is low, the rehabilitation effect is poor and the mortality rate is high. The survival rate of Meek skin group is high, the rehabilitation effect is good, the mortality rate is low, but the healing time is long. Survival rate, healing time, 1% TBSA treatment cost, primary healing rate, mortality and recovery rate among the three groups were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Different skin grafting methods for the treatment of wound burns have different clinical effects. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Clinically, different skin grafting methods should be chosen according to the patients’ own conditions.