de Graaf E, van Baar M E, Baartmans M G A, Scholten-Jaegers S M H J, Nieuwenhuis M K, Eshuis J, Hiddingh J, Beerthuizen G I J M, van der Vlies C H
Erasmus Medical Centre, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Association of Dutch Burn Centers, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Burns. 2017 Jun;43(4):733-740. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.10.009. Epub 2016 Dec 28.
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of different treatment strategies for children with partial-thickness scalds at two burn centers. At the first burn center, these burns were treated with a hydrofiber dressing (Aquacel, Convatec, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) or silver sulfadiazine (SSD, Flammazine, Sinclair IS Pharma, London, UK Pharmaceuticals), while at the second burn center, cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (CN-SSD, Flammacerium, Sinclair IS Pharma, London, UK Pharmaceuticals) was used.
A two-center retrospective study was conducted of children admitted between January 2009 and December 2013 for partial-thickness scalds up to 10% TBSA who were treated primarily with a hydrofiber dressing or silver sulfadiazine (Burn Center Rotterdam) vs. cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine (Burn Center Groningen). The Dutch Burn Repository R3 and the electronic medical records of the study population were used for data extraction. The primary outcome was the time to wound healing. The secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, wound infection, and surgical treatment.
The time to wound healing differed between the groups (HR=1.46, 95%CI 1.17-1.82); the shortest time to wound healing was observed in the patients treated with CN-SSD (median 13 days), compared with 15 days for the patients treated with hydrofiber and 16 days for the patients treated with SSD (p<0.01). The length of stay was significantly shorter for the hydrofiber patients (medians: hydrofiber 3 days, SSD 10 days and CN-SSD 7 days; p<0.01), but their outpatient treatment period was significantly longer (medians: hydrofiber 12 days, SSD 6 and CN-SSD 4 days; p<0.01). The proportion of surgeries and the mean time to surgery was similar between the burn centers.
This study compared different burn centers' treatment strategies for children with partial-thickness scalds and found a shorter time to wound healing in the CN-SSD group. Patients treated with hydrofiber had a shorter clinical period in comparison with the SSD and CN-SSD patients. The results of CN-SSD are promising and warrant further study. A prospective study is needed to gain full insight into the merits and drawbacks of the treatment strategies. This will allow clinicians to make full use of the strengths of particular treatments to benefit specific patients.
本研究旨在比较两个烧伤中心对儿童浅Ⅱ度烫伤采用不同治疗策略的临床效果。在第一个烧伤中心,这些烧伤采用水凝胶敷料(爱康肤银,康维德公司,美国新泽西州普林斯顿)或磺胺嘧啶银(Flammazine,辛克莱IS制药公司,英国伦敦制药公司)治疗,而在第二个烧伤中心,则使用硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银(Flammacerium,辛克莱IS制药公司,英国伦敦制药公司)。
对2009年1月至2013年12月因浅Ⅱ度烫伤入院、烧伤面积达10%TBSA的儿童进行了一项两中心回顾性研究,这些儿童主要接受水凝胶敷料或磺胺嘧啶银治疗(鹿特丹烧伤中心)与硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银治疗(格罗宁根烧伤中心)。利用荷兰烧伤资料库R3和研究人群的电子病历进行数据提取。主要结局指标是伤口愈合时间。次要结局指标是住院时间、伤口感染和手术治疗情况。
两组之间伤口愈合时间存在差异(HR = 1.46,95%CI 1.17 - 1.82);硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银治疗的患者伤口愈合时间最短(中位数13天),相比之下,水凝胶敷料治疗的患者为15天,磺胺嘧啶银治疗的患者为16天(p < 0.01)。水凝胶敷料治疗的患者住院时间明显较短(中位数:水凝胶敷料组3天,磺胺嘧啶银组10天,硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银组7天;p < 0.01),但其门诊治疗时间明显更长(中位数:水凝胶敷料组12天,磺胺嘧啶银组6天,硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银组4天;p < 0.01)。两个烧伤中心的手术比例和平均手术时间相似。
本研究比较了不同烧伤中心对儿童浅Ⅱ度烫伤的治疗策略,发现硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银组伤口愈合时间更短。与磺胺嘧啶银和硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银治疗的患者相比,水凝胶敷料治疗的患者临床治疗周期更短。硝酸铈 - 磺胺嘧啶银的治疗结果很有前景,值得进一步研究。需要进行前瞻性研究以全面了解这些治疗策略的优缺点。这将使临床医生能够充分利用特定治疗方法的优势,使特定患者受益。