首页> 外文期刊>Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association >Enzymatic Versus Traditional Surgical Debridement of Severely Burned Hands: A Comparison of Selectivity, Efficacy, Healing Time, and Three-Month Scar Quality
【24h】

Enzymatic Versus Traditional Surgical Debridement of Severely Burned Hands: A Comparison of Selectivity, Efficacy, Healing Time, and Three-Month Scar Quality

机译:酶促与传统的手术作品严重烧伤:选择性,疗效,愈合时间和三个月瘢痕质量的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Severe burns of the hands are extremely challenging, given their anatomic complexity and vulnerability. Although excisional debridement with autografting remains the standard of care (SOC), previous studies have shown that use of enzymatic debridement with bromelain (NexoBrid, EDNX) enables rapid, selective enzymatic debridement, preserving viable tissue. To date, only two studies accruing data on EDNX in this setting have been published. The current study was conducted to compare EDNX with traditional surgical debridement (TSD) of deep dermal and full-thickness hand burns. This single-center, controlled clinical trial included 40 patients, aged 18 to 76 years, with deep dermal burns of the hand. The first 20 patients were debrided surgically, and the other 20 patients were using EDNX for debridement. Therapeutic selectivity, time to complete debridement and healing, complications, and 3-month functional/esthetic outcomes were compared by group. EDNX (vs TSD) significantly reduced time to complete debridement after admission (0.95 day vs 7.750 days; P < .001) and treatments needed for complete debridement (1.05 vs 1.45; P < .001), improving burn depth evaluation (initially overestimated in 55% of EDNX-treated patients). The number of wounds requiring autografting was certainly reduced (15% vs 95%; P = .034), as was time to complete healing after first debridement (23.30 vs 32.00 days; P < .001), and early scar quality after 3 months was nearly equivalent, with only heightened local redness in the EDNX group (P < .001). Compared with TSD, EDNX was superior in burn depth evaluation, tissue preservation, completeness of debridement, and wound closure. Scar quality after 3 months did not differ substantially.
机译:鉴于他们解剖复杂性和脆弱性,手中的严重烧伤是非常具有挑战性的。尽管具有自动化的快速清卓人仍然是护理标准(SOC),但之前的研究表明,使用酶促创新与溴(Nexobrid,EDNX)的使用能够快速,选择性酶促清除,保持活组织。迄今为止,已发布在此设置中的EDNX上的两个研究已发布。进行目前的研究,以比较EDNX与传统的外科手术室(TSD)深层皮肤和全厚手烧伤。这种单一中心受控临床试验包括40名患者,年龄18至76岁,手中深深的皮肤灼伤。前20名患者手术脱击,另外20名患者使用EDNX进行清创。通过组比较了治疗选择性,完成清创和愈合,并发症和3个月的功能/美学结果。 EDNX(VS TSD)在入场后显着减少了完成清创的时间(0.95天与7.750天; P <.001)和完整清创所需的治疗方法(1.05 Vs 1.45; P <.001),改善烧伤深度评估(最初过度估计55%的EDNX治疗的患者)。需要自动化的伤口数量肯定会降低(15%vs 95%; p = .034),因为在第一次清除后完成愈合的时间(23.30与32.00天; p <.001),以及3个月后早期瘢痕质量几乎等同,只有EDNX组中的局部发红,只能加长(P <.001)。与TSD相比,EDNX在烧伤深度评估,组织保存,清创和伤口闭合中优越。 3个月后疤痕质量没有大幅差异。

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