Saeed Sana, Sohail Muhammad, Bashir Muhammad Mustehsan, Bajwa Mohammad Suleman, Nazir Umer, Khadam Mamoona
Department of Plastic Surgery, Jinnah Burn and Reconstructive Surgery Center, Lahore, Pakistan.
Department of Plastic Surgery, King Edward Medical University, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.
Burns. 2024 Dec;50(9):107221. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.07.025. Epub 2024 Jul 24.
The relative effectiveness of early excision and autografting (EG) for deep-partial thickness burns needs to be updated through comparison to initial non-operative (INO) treatment using modern interactive antimicrobial (IA) dressings in a South-Asian burn patient population.
To compare the outcome of early tangential excision and autografting (EG) to initial non-operative (INO) treatment using interactive antimicrobial dressing.
Records of 106 adult burn survivors with predominantly deep-partial thickness thermal burns of TBSA ≤ 30 % were retrospectively reviewed (53 patients each in EG-arm and INO-arm). EG-arm patients underwent excision and autografting within 7 days. INO-arm patients, who had opted against surgical excision, received interactive antimicrobial dressing (hydrofiber with ionic silver). Outcomes measured include percentage of wound healed on days 14 and 21, days to complete wound healing, duration of hospital stay, complications (on 12 months' follow-up) and patient satisfaction scores. Patients were analyzed as treated.
Patients in each arm had similar TBSA and demographic profiles. In EG-arm patients, 15-20 % of TBSA were grafted on 5.02 ± 0.71 post-burn day. Thirty percent of EG-arm patients required a second session of grafting for the remaining burn wound, which occurred on 6.873 ± 0.34 post-burn day. On the 21st post-burn day the EG-arm, compared to the INO-arm, had a higher percentage of wound epithelization (98.60 ± 4.03, versus 76.16 ± 7.02, P < 0.01), less days to complete healing (17.60 ± 5.83, versus 40.16 ± 9.09, P < 0.01), and shorter hospital stays (19.62 ± 6.85 days, versus 35.56 ± 7.77 days, P < 0.01). Twenty-five (47 %) INO-arm patients underwent delayed grafting on post-burn day 25.42 ± 0.49. The INO-arm suffered significantly more complications, such as hypertrophic scar, dyspigmentation and functional disability (P < 0.05). EG-arm patients were more satisfied than INO-arm patients (P < 0.01).
We report superior outcomes in the early tangential excision and autografting-arm as compared to the initial non-operative treatment arm. The dogma of early excision and autografting remains valid despite significant advances in wound dressing materials.
在南亚烧伤患者群体中,需要通过与使用现代交互式抗菌(IA)敷料的初始非手术(INO)治疗进行比较,来更新早期切除和自体植皮(EG)治疗深度部分厚度烧伤的相对有效性。
比较早期削痂植皮(EG)与使用交互式抗菌敷料的初始非手术(INO)治疗的效果。
回顾性分析106例成年烧伤幸存者的记录,这些患者主要为TBSA≤30%的深度部分厚度热烧伤(EG组和INO组各53例)。EG组患者在7天内接受切除和自体植皮。INO组患者选择不进行手术切除,接受交互式抗菌敷料(含离子银的水凝胶纤维)。测量的结果包括第14天和第21天伤口愈合的百分比、完全伤口愈合的天数、住院时间、并发症(12个月随访)和患者满意度评分。对患者按治疗情况进行分析。
每组患者的TBSA和人口统计学特征相似。EG组患者在烧伤后5.02±0.71天移植了15%-20%的TBSA。30%的EG组患者因剩余烧伤创面需要进行第二次植皮,发生在烧伤后6.873±0.34天。在烧伤后第21天,EG组与INO组相比,伤口上皮化百分比更高(98.60±4.03对76.16±7.02,P<0.01),完全愈合天数更少(17.60±5.83对40.16±9.09,P<0.01),住院时间更短(19.62±6.85天对35.56±7.77天,P<0.01)。25例(47%)INO组患者在烧伤后25.42±0.49天进行了延迟植皮。INO组出现更多并发症,如增生性瘢痕、色素沉着和功能障碍(P<0.05)。EG组患者比INO组患者更满意(P<0.01)。
我们报告早期削痂植皮组的效果优于初始非手术治疗组。尽管伤口敷料材料有了重大进展,但早期切除和自体植皮的原则仍然有效。