Department of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, USA.
J Burn Care Res. 2021 Nov 24;42(6):1093-1096. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irab113.
In order to address the confounder of TBSA on burn outcomes, we sought to analyze our experience with the use of autologous skin cell suspensions (ASCS) in a cohort of subjects with hand burns whose TBSA totaled 20% or less. We hypothesized that the use of ASCS in conjunction with 2:1 meshed autograft for the treatment of hand burn injuries would provide comparable outcomes to hand burns treated with sheet or minimally meshed autograft alone. A retrospective review was conducted for all deep partial and full-thickness hand burns treated with split-thickness autograft (STAG) at our urban verified burn center between April 2018 and September 2020. The exclusion criterion was a TBSA greater than 20%. The cohorts were those subjects treated with ASCS in combination with STAG (ASCS(+)) vs those treated with STAG alone (ASCS(-)). All ASCS(+) subjects were treated with 2:1 meshed STAG and ASCS overspray while all ASCS(-) subjects had 1:1, piecrust, or unmeshed sheet graft alone. Outcomes measured included demographics, time to wound closure, proportion returning to work (RTW), and length of time to RTW. Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Values are reported as medians and 25th and 75th interquartile ranges. Fifty-one subjects fit the study criteria (ASCS(+) n = 31, ASCS(-) n = 20). The ASCS(+) group was significantly older than the ASCS(-) cohort (44 [32-54] vs 32 years [27.5-37], P = .009) with larger %TBSA burns (15% [9.5-17] vs 2% [1-4], P < .0001) and larger size hand burns (190 [120-349.5] vs 126 cm2 [73.5-182], P = .015). Comparable results were seen between ASCS(+) and ASCS(-), respectively, for time to wound closure (9 [7-13] vs 11.5 days [6.75-14], P = .63), proportion RTW (61% vs 70%, P = .56), and days for RTW among those returning (35 [28.5-57] vs 33 [20.25-59], P = .52). The ASCS(+) group had two graft infections with no reoperations, while ASCS(-) had one infection with one reoperation. No subjects in either group had a dermal substitute placed. Despite being significantly older, having larger hand wounds, and larger overall wounds within the parameters of the study criteria, patients with 20% TBSA burns or smaller whose hand burns were treated with 2:1 mesh and ASCS overspray had comparable time to wound closure, proportion of RTW, and time to return to work as subjects treated with 1:1 or piecrust meshed STAG. Our group plans to follow this work with scar assessments for a more granular picture of pliability and reconstructive needs.
为了解决 TBSA 对手部烧伤结果的混杂影响,我们分析了在一组 TBSA 总烧伤面积为 20%或以下的手部烧伤患者中使用自体皮肤细胞悬液(ASCS)的经验。我们假设,与单独使用片状或最小网格自体移植物治疗手部烧伤相比,将 ASCS 与 2:1 网格自体移植物联合使用治疗手部烧伤损伤将提供相当的结果。对 2018 年 4 月至 2020 年 9 月在我们的城市验证烧伤中心接受断层皮片自体移植(STAG)治疗的所有深度部分和全层手部烧伤患者进行了回顾性研究。排除标准是 TBSA 大于 20%。队列为接受 ASCS 联合 STAG 治疗的患者(ASCS(+))与接受 STAG 单独治疗的患者(ASCS(-))。所有 ASCS(+)患者均接受 2:1 网格 STAG 和 ASCS 喷雾治疗,而所有 ASCS(-)患者均接受 1:1、馅饼皮或无网格片状移植物治疗。测量的结果包括人口统计学、伤口闭合时间、重返工作岗位(RTW)的比例和 RTW 时间。连续变量采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验,分类变量采用 Fisher 确切检验。数值以中位数和 25%和 75%四分位间距表示。符合研究标准的有 51 名患者(ASCS(+)n=31,ASCS(-)n=20)。ASCS(+)组明显比 ASCS(-)队列年龄大(44 [32-54] 岁比 32 岁 [27.5-37],P=0.009),烧伤面积更大(15% [9.5-17] 比 2% [1-4],P<0.0001),手部烧伤面积更大(190 [120-349.5]cm2 比 126cm2 [73.5-182],P=0.015)。ASCS(+)和 ASCS(-)分别在伤口闭合时间(9 [7-13] 天比 11.5 天 [6.75-14],P=0.63)、RTW 比例(61%比 70%,P=0.56)和 RTW 时间(返回者为 35 [28.5-57] 天比 33 [20.25-59] 天,P=0.52)方面,结果相似。ASCS(+)组有 2 例移植物感染,无再次手术,ASCS(-)组有 1 例感染,1 例再次手术。两组均无真皮替代物。尽管 ASCS(+)组年龄较大,手部伤口较大,手部和总体伤口参数较大,但 TBSA 为 20%或更小且手部烧伤面积为 2:1 网格和 ASCS 喷雾治疗的患者,伤口闭合时间、RTW 比例和 RTW 时间与接受 1:1 或馅饼皮网格 STAG 治疗的患者相当。我们的团队计划通过疤痕评估来进一步了解柔韧性和重建需求,以获得更详细的信息。