• MEBO 在大面积烧伤瘢痕复合皮移植术后创面中的应用效果分析
  • Application Effect of MEBO in Wounds Following Composite Skin Graftingfor Extensive Burn Scars
  • 陈 龙,孙 博,宋 亚.MEBO 在大面积烧伤瘢痕复合皮移植术后创面中的应用效果分析[J].中国烧伤创疡杂志,2022,(4):254~257.
    DOI:
    中文关键词:  湿润烧伤膏  大面积烧伤  瘢痕  复合皮移植术  创面
    英文关键词:MEBO  Extensive burns  Scar  Composite skin grafting  Wound
    基金项目:
    作者单位
    陈 龙 450052 河南 郑州, 郑州市骨科医院手外科显微骨科 
    孙 博 450052 河南 郑州, 郑州市骨科医院正骨科 
    宋 亚 450052 河南 郑州, 郑州市骨科医院关节科 
    摘要点击次数: 1412
    全文下载次数: 3969
    中文摘要:
          【摘要】 目的 探讨湿润烧伤膏(MEBO)在大面积烧伤瘢痕复合皮移植术后创面中的应用效果。方法 选取2018年2月至2019年2月郑州市骨科医院收治的80 例拟行复合皮移植术治疗的大面积烧伤瘢痕患者作为研究对象,并按照随机数表法将其随机分为 MEBO 组 (40例)和常规组(40例), MEBO组患者复合皮移植术后创面予以 MEBO 治疗, 常规组患者复合皮移植术后创面予以磺胺嘧啶银乳膏治疗, 对比观察两组患者创面愈合率、创面愈合时间、瘢痕评分以及并发症发生情况。结果 术后7、14、21 d,MEBO组患者创面愈合率均明显高于常规组 (t = 2.206、3.569、5.296,P = 0.030、P < 0.001、P < 0.001)。MEBO 组患者创面愈合时间为(13.10±4.05) d,明显短于常规组患者的创面愈合时间 (16.55±5.28) d (t = 3.279, P = 0.002)。其间,MEBO组患者并发症发生率为 5.00%,明显低于常规组患者的并发症发生率 22.50% (χ2 = 5.165,P = 0.023)?治疗结束后12周,MEBO组患者温哥华瘢痕量表 (VSS) 评分中瘢痕色泽、厚度、血管分布、柔软度评分均明显低于常规组 (t =3.406、3.559、4.322、3.320,P =0.001、P < 0.001、P < 0.001、P = 0.001)。结论 MEBO 可有效促进大面积烧伤瘢痕患者复合皮移植术后创面愈合,缩短创面愈合时间,改善瘢痕症状,降低并发症发生率,值得临床推广应用。
    英文摘要:
          【Abstract】 Objective To study the application effect of MEBO in the wound management after composite skin grafting for extensive burn scar. Methods 80 patients, admitted into Zhengzhou Orthopaedic Hospital between February 2018 and February 2019 to undergo composite skin grafting for extensive burn scars, were enrolled as research subjects, and divided into MEBO group (n =40) and routine group (n =40) using the random number table. The wounds of patients following composite skin grafting were managed with MEBO in MEBO group, while the postoperative wounds of patients in routine group were treated with Sulfadiazine Silver Cream. The wound healing rate, wound healing time, scar scores and occurrence of complications were compared between the two groups. Results Respectively on day 7, 14 and 21 after surgery,the wound healing rates were obviously higher in MEBO group than routine group (t = 2.206, 3.569 and 5.296, P =0.030, P <0.001, P <0.001). The wound healing time was (13.10±4.05) d in MEBO group, being markedly shorterthan the corresponding (16.55 ±5.28) d in routine group (t = 3.279, P = 0.002). During the course of treatment, the incidence of complications was 5.00% in MEBO group, much lower than the corresponding 22.50% in routine group (χ2 =5.165, P = 0.023). At week 12 after the end of treatment, the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores of scar color, thickness, distribution of vessels and softness in MEBO group were all obviously lower than that in routine group (t = 3.406,3.559, 4.322 and 3.320, P =0.001, P <0.001, P <0.001 and P = 0.001). Conclusion MEBO can effectively promote the wound healing of patients after composite skin grafting for extensive burn scars, shorten the wound healing time,ameliorate the scar symptoms, and reduce the incidence of complications, deserving to be promoted in clinical practice.