Objective To observe and compare the clinical efficacy of Burns Regenerative Medicine ( MEBT/MEBO) and Burns Surgical Treatment (SD-Ag and/ or skin-grafting) in preventing and controlling wound infection of burns. Methods A total of 60 hospitalized patients with extensive major burns were enrolled into the study and divided into the study group (MEBO group, 30 cases) or the control group (SD-Ag group, 30 cases) randomly. After the admission, all the cases were given standard systemic treatment and wound management following the treatment principle of either Burns Re-generative Medicine or Burns Surgical Treatment. The following indexes including the average administration duration of an-tibiotics, the second-time administration rate of antibiotics, the incurrence of invasive infection, and the healing time of wounds with various depths as well as the rate of skin grafting of the two groups were observed and recorded. Results After the treatment, the wounds of the two groups all healed. The average healing time of the study group was 34. 9 ± 8. 6 d; that of the control group was 39. 4 ± 9. 1 d. As for the average administration duration of antibiotics, it was 7. 5 d for the study group and 15. 5 d for the control group. The second-time administration rate of antibiotics was 4 (13. 3% ) in the study group and 9 (30. 0% ) in the control group. Four cases (13. 3% ) in the test group developed invasive wound infection while the number for the control group was 20 (66. 7% ) . Three cases (10% ) in the study group and 20 cases in the con-trol group (66. 7% ) accepted skin grafting. Based on t test and χ2 test, all the indexes of the two groups were significantly different (P < 0. 05). Conclusion MEBT/ MEBO approach to treating extensive major burns can obtain great clinical effi-cacy in terms of effectively preventing and controlling the occurrence of wound infection, reducing the administration of anti-biotics, promoting wound healing and reducing the incurrence of skin grafting. It deserves to be promoted for wide applica-tion and further research.% 目的对比观察烧伤再生医疗技术(MEBT/ MEBO)与烧伤外科治疗技术(SD-Ag 和/或植皮)在预防控制烧伤创面感染的临床效果.方法将60例符合入选标准的大面积重度烧伤患者随机分为研究组(MEBO组,30例)和对照组(SD-Ag 组,30例),患者入院后分别按照烧伤再生医疗技术或烧伤外科治疗技术的治疗原则,进行规范的系统治疗及创面处理.观察、记录两组患者的抗生素平均使用天数、抗生素二次使用率、侵袭性感染发生率、不同深度烧伤创面的愈合时间和手术植皮率.结果经过治疗,两组患者的创面均实现了愈合,研究组平均愈合时间34.9 d ±8.6 d,对照组平均愈合时间39.4 d ±9.1 d.抗生素平均使用天数：研究组7.5 d,对照组15.5 d.抗生素二次使用情况：研究组4例(13.3%),对照组9例(30.0%).创面侵袭性感染情况：研究组4例(13.3%),对照组20例(66.7%).植皮手术：研究组3例(10.0%),对照组20例(66.7%).经 t 检验或χ2检验,两组间各指标相比均有显著性差异(P <0.05).结论烧伤再生医疗技术治疗大面积重度烧伤能够有效预防控制创面感染、减少抗生素使用、促进创面愈合和降低手术植皮率,收到了较好的预防控制烧伤创面感染的临床效果,值得临床推广应用和进一步深入研究.
展开▼
