纱布负压创面敷料对植皮存活影响的比较研究

Sarut Chaisrisawadisuk, W. Tangjatuporn, A. Chuangsuwanich
{"title":"纱布负压创面敷料对植皮存活影响的比较研究","authors":"Sarut Chaisrisawadisuk, W. Tangjatuporn, A. Chuangsuwanich","doi":"10.31524/BKKMEDJ.2020.21.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES: To compare the success rates of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) survival for gauze-based and foam-based Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing (NPWDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective, cohort study was conducted to compare the STSG survival rates of gauze-based and foam-based NPWDs at Days 7 and 30 post-surgery. Sixty-nine patients underwent STSG and NPWD procedures. In all, 79 wounds required dressing: 42 had a foam-based NPWD applied, while the remaining 37 wounds had a gauze-based NPWD. Wall-suctioned, continuously negative pressure was applied at -100 mmHg for 7 days. RESULTS: At Day 7, the median graft survivals of the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 89.74% and 87.63%, respectively. At 30 days, the median graft survival for the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 95.2% and 92.01%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the graft survival of the 2 groups. The success rate of graft survival for the gauze-based NPWD proved to not be inferior to that of foam-based NPWD. CONCLUSION: Gauzed-based NPWD is non-inferior to foam-based NPWD in terms of STSG survival. Gauze can be used as an alternative NPWD for STSG immobilization.","PeriodicalId":92144,"journal":{"name":"The Bangkok medical journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The The Effect of Gauze-Based, Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing on Skin Graft Survival: A Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Sarut Chaisrisawadisuk, W. Tangjatuporn, A. Chuangsuwanich\",\"doi\":\"10.31524/BKKMEDJ.2020.21.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES: To compare the success rates of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) survival for gauze-based and foam-based Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing (NPWDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective, cohort study was conducted to compare the STSG survival rates of gauze-based and foam-based NPWDs at Days 7 and 30 post-surgery. Sixty-nine patients underwent STSG and NPWD procedures. In all, 79 wounds required dressing: 42 had a foam-based NPWD applied, while the remaining 37 wounds had a gauze-based NPWD. Wall-suctioned, continuously negative pressure was applied at -100 mmHg for 7 days. RESULTS: At Day 7, the median graft survivals of the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 89.74% and 87.63%, respectively. At 30 days, the median graft survival for the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 95.2% and 92.01%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the graft survival of the 2 groups. The success rate of graft survival for the gauze-based NPWD proved to not be inferior to that of foam-based NPWD. CONCLUSION: Gauzed-based NPWD is non-inferior to foam-based NPWD in terms of STSG survival. Gauze can be used as an alternative NPWD for STSG immobilization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92144,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bangkok medical journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bangkok medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31524/BKKMEDJ.2020.21.007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bangkok medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31524/BKKMEDJ.2020.21.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较纱布基和泡沫基负压创面敷料(NPWDs)的裂厚皮移植(STSG)存活率。材料和方法:进行了一项单中心、前瞻性队列研究,比较纱布和泡沫npwd在术后7天和30天的STSG存活率。69例患者行STSG和NPWD手术。总共有79个伤口需要敷料:42个伤口使用了泡沫基NPWD,而其余37个伤口使用了纱布基NPWD。壁吸连续负压-100 mmHg,持续7天。结果:第7天,泡沫和纱布基npwd的中位移植成活率分别为89.74%和87.63%。30天时,泡沫和纱布基npwd的中位存活率分别为95.2%和92.01%。两组移植物存活率比较,差异无统计学意义。纱布基NPWD的移植成活率不低于泡沫基NPWD。结论:纱布基NPWD与泡沫基NPWD在STSG存活方面并不差。纱布可作为STSG固定的替代NPWD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The The Effect of Gauze-Based, Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing on Skin Graft Survival: A Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES: To compare the success rates of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) survival for gauze-based and foam-based Negative-Pressure Wound Dressing (NPWDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective, cohort study was conducted to compare the STSG survival rates of gauze-based and foam-based NPWDs at Days 7 and 30 post-surgery. Sixty-nine patients underwent STSG and NPWD procedures. In all, 79 wounds required dressing: 42 had a foam-based NPWD applied, while the remaining 37 wounds had a gauze-based NPWD. Wall-suctioned, continuously negative pressure was applied at -100 mmHg for 7 days. RESULTS: At Day 7, the median graft survivals of the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 89.74% and 87.63%, respectively. At 30 days, the median graft survival for the foam- and gauze-based NPWDs were 95.2% and 92.01%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the graft survival of the 2 groups. The success rate of graft survival for the gauze-based NPWD proved to not be inferior to that of foam-based NPWD. CONCLUSION: Gauzed-based NPWD is non-inferior to foam-based NPWD in terms of STSG survival. Gauze can be used as an alternative NPWD for STSG immobilization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信