...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association >Estimation of burn depth at burn centers in the United States: a survey.
【24h】

Estimation of burn depth at burn centers in the United States: a survey.

机译:美国燃烧中心的燃烧深度估算:一项调查。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Accurate burn depth estimation remains one of the foundations of optimal burn care. The method by which burn depth is determined has traditionally been clinical examination alone. This continues to hold true in the United States, despite a plethora of literature supporting the use of more accurate modalities such as laser Doppler imaging (LDI). LDI has widespread use in burn centers in the United Kingdom and around the world. Thus, the reason for a lack of use in U.S. burn centers remains elusive. A survey of U.S. burn center directors was conducted to assess their current practices and attitudes with regard to burn depth estimation at U.S. burn centers in an effort to answer this question. Surveys were returned from 68 burn center directors (49% response rate). All respondents reported using clinical examination in their current practice for the daily evaluation of acute burns, with a biopsy being the next most commonly used modality. The most preferred modality was also clinical examination (60%), followed by LDI (6%) and biopsy (4%). The top three modalities ranked as "most promising" for daily use were clinical examination, LDI, and noncontact/high-frequency ultrasound. Directors identified the top three limitations to the use of new technology as cost (72%), availability (63%), and lack of support by evidence to date (35%). Future studies may need to focus on overcoming these perceived limitations before the widespread use of LDI or other new modalities will be realized at burn centers in the United States.
机译:准确的烧伤深度估算仍然是最佳烧伤护理的基础之一。传统上,仅通过临床检查即可确定烧伤深度。尽管有大量文献支持使用更精确的模态(例如激光多普勒成像(LDI)),但在美国这仍然是正确的。 LDI已在英国和世界各地的燃烧中心广泛使用。因此,在美国烧伤中心缺乏使用的原因仍然难以捉摸。为了回答这个问题,对美国烧伤中心主任进行了一项调查,以评估他们目前在美国烧伤中心估计烧伤深度方面的做法和态度。来自68个烧伤中心主任的调查返回了调查(回复率为49%)。所有受访者均报告说,在他们目前的实践中使用临床检查对急性烧伤进行日常评估,其次是最常用的活检方法。最优选的方式也是临床检查(60%),其次是LDI(6%)和活检(4%)。日常使用中被认为是“最有前途”的三大模式是临床检查,LDI和非接触式/高频超声。董事们认为,使用新技术的三大限制是成本(72%),可用性(63%)以及迄今为止缺乏证据支持(35%)。未来的研究可能需要着重于克服这些公认的局限性,然后才能在美国燃烧中心广泛使用LDI或其他新方式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号