Shen Z A, Liu X Z, Xie X Y, Zhang B H, Li D W, Liu Z X, Yuan H G
Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, the Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Yu Chuang Mian Xiu Fu Za Zhi. 2023 Jan 20;39(1):59-64. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20211111-00384.
To investigate the scientificity and feasibility of the ten-fold rehydration formula for emergency resuscitation of pediatric patients after extensive burns. A retrospective observational study was conducted. The total burn area of 30%-100% total body surface area (TBSA) and body weight of 6-50 kg in 433 pediatric patients (250 males and 183 females, aged 3 months to 14 years) with extensive burns who met the inclusion criteria and admitted to the burn departments of 72 Class A tertiary hospitals were collected. The 6 319 pairs of simulated data were constructed after pairing each body weight of 6-50 kg (programmed in steps of 0.5 kg) and each total burn area of 30%-100% TBSA (programmed in steps of 1%TBSA). They were put into three accepted pediatric rehydration formulae, namely the commonly used domestic pediatric rehydration formula for burn patients (hereinafter referred to as the domestic rehydration formula), the Galveston formula, and the Cincinnati formula, and the two rehydration formulae for pediatric emergency, namely the simplified resuscitation formula for emergency care of patients with extensive burns proposed by the World Health Organization's Technical Working Group on Burns (TWGB, hereinafter referred to as the TWGB formula) and the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula proposed by the author of this article--rehydration rate (mL/h)=body weight (kg) × 10 (mL·kg·h) to calculate the rehydration rate within 8 h post injury (hereinafter referred to as the rehydration rate). The range of the results of the 3 accepted pediatric rehydration formulae ±20% were regarded as the reasonable rehydration rate, and the accuracy rates of rehydration rate calculated using the two pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were compared. Using the maximum burn areas (55% and 85% TBSA) corresponding to the reasonable rehydration rate calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula at the body weight of 6 and 50 kg respectively, the total burn area of 30% to 100% TBSA was divided into 3 segments and the accuracy rates of the rehydration rate calculated using the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae in each segment were compared. When neither of the rehydration rates calculated by the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae was reasonable, the differences between the two rehydration rates were compared. The distribution of 433 pediatric patients in the 3 previous total burn area segments was counted and the accuracy rates of the rehydration rate calculated using the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were calculated and compared. Data were statistically analyzed with McNemar test. Substitution of 6 319 pairs of simulated data showed that the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula was 73.92% (4 671/6 319), which was significantly higher than 4.02% (254/6 319) of the TWGB formula (=6 490.88,<0.05). When the total burn area was 30%-55% and 56%-85% TBSA, the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula were 100% (2 314/2 314) and 88.28% (2 357/2 670), respectively, which were significantly higher than 10.98% (254/2 314) and 0 (0/2 670) of the TWGB formula (with values of 3 712.49 and 4 227.97, respectively, <0.05); when the total burn area was 86%-100% TBSA, the accuracy rates of the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula and the TWGB formula were 0 (0/1 335). When the rehydration rates calculated by the 2 pediatric emergency rehydration formulae were unreasonable, the rehydration rates calculated by the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula were all higher than those of the TWGB formula. There were 93.07% (403/433), 5.77% (25/433), and 1.15% (5/433) patients in the 433 pediatric patients had total burn area of 30%-55%, 56%-85%, and 86%-100% TBSA, respectively, and the accuracy rate of the rehydration rate calculated using the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula was 97.69% (423/433), which was significantly higher than 0 (0/433) of the TWGB formula (=826.90, <0.05). The application of the pediatric ten-fold rehydration formula to estimate the rehydration rate of pediatric patients after extensive burns is more accurate and convenient, superior to the TWGB formula, suitable for application by front-line healthcare workers that are not specialized in burns in pre-admission rescue of pediatric patients with extensive burns, and is worthy of promotion.
探讨小儿大面积烧伤后急救复苏十倍补液公式的科学性与可行性。进行回顾性观察研究。收集了72家三级甲等医院烧伤科收治的符合纳入标准的433例小儿大面积烧伤患者(男250例,女183例,年龄3个月至14岁)的资料,其烧伤总面积为30% - 100%体表面积(TBSA),体重为6 - 50 kg。将6 - 50 kg的每一个体重值(以0.5 kg为步长编程)与30% - 100% TBSA的每一个烧伤总面积值(以1% TBSA为步长编程)进行配对,构建了6319对模拟数据。将这些数据代入三个公认的小儿补液公式,即国内常用的小儿烧伤患者补液公式(以下简称国内补液公式)、加尔维斯顿公式和辛辛那提公式,以及两个小儿急救补液公式,即世界卫生组织烧伤技术工作组提出的小儿大面积烧伤急救简化复苏公式(TWGB公式,以下简称TWGB公式)和本文作者提出的小儿十倍补液公式——补液速率(mL/h)=体重(kg)×10(mL·kg·h),计算伤后8小时内的补液速率(以下简称补液速率)。将三个公认的小儿补液公式结果的±20%范围视为合理补液速率,比较使用两个小儿急救补液公式计算的补液速率准确率。分别采用小儿十倍补液公式在体重6 kg和50 kg时计算出的合理补液速率对应的最大烧伤面积(55%和85% TBSA),将30% - 100% TBSA的烧伤总面积分为3段,比较两个小儿急救补液公式在各段计算的补液速率准确率。当两个小儿急救补液公式计算的补液速率均不合理时,比较两者的差值。统计433例小儿患者在之前3个烧伤总面积段的分布情况,计算并比较两个小儿急救补液公式计算的补液速率准确率。数据采用McNemar检验进行统计学分析。代入6319对模拟数据显示,小儿十倍补液公式计算补液速率的准确率为