Application of ultrasonic debridement combined with negative pressure wound therapy in deep burn wound with dissolved scab

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2023.02.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of ultrasonic debridement combined with negative pressure wound therapy in the deep burn wound with dissolved scab.

Methods

Clinical randomized controlled trial was conducted. From April 2018 to April 2022, 61 patients with deep burn wounds with dissolved scab admitted to the Burn and Plastic Surgery Department of the 980th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force were selected and divided into the treatment group (31 cases) and the control group (30 cases) according to the random number table method. The treatment group was treated with ultrasonic debridement combined with negative pressure wound therapy, while the control group was treated with traditional dressing change therapy, dressing change every 2-3 days, and traditional surgical debridement. Skin grafts were performed after wound debridement in both groups. The length of hospital stay, bacterial clearance rate on the 3rd day after debridement, skin grafting time after injury, skin graft survival rate on the 7th day after skin grafting and the incidence of hematoma were recorded.

Results

The hospital stay of the treatment group (34.16±3.33) d was significantly shorter than that of the control group(43.17±5.43)d, the bacterial clearance rate of 90.91% (40/44) was significantly higher than that of the control group 73.81% (31/42), and the skin grafting time after injury(22.09±2.62)d was significantly shorter than that of the control group(28.50±4.02)d. The skin survival rate (92.58±3.35)% was significantly higher than that of the control group (82.56±6.05)%, and the incidence of hematoma (9.68%, 3/31) was significantly lower than that of the control group (36.67%, 11/30).

Conclusion

Ultrasonic debridement combined with negative pressure wound therapy has a significant clinical effect in deep burn wound with dissolved scab, which can significantly reduce the bacterial load of wounds, improve the survival rate of skin grafts, promote wound healing, and shorten the course of the disease, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Key words: Burns, Ultrasonic debridement, Negative pressure wound therapy, Wound healing

Zeliang He, Jin Li, Chengliang Zhang, Zhenyang Sui, Liangen An, Lingling Liu, Yuanyuan Yao, Julei Zhang, Shulin Qiu, Xiaodong Li. Application of ultrasonic debridement combined with negative pressure wound therapy in deep burn wound with dissolved scab[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2023, 18(02): 123-127.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2023.02.006

https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V18/I02/123

Figures/Tables 3

References 22

[8]	孙青青，严磊，蔡佳，等. 超声清创联合封闭负压技术治疗下肢多因素慢性溃疡的病例回顾研究[J]. 组织工程与重建外科，2021，17(6)：524-528.
[9]	Palmieri B, Vadala M, Laurino C. Electromedical devices in wound healing management: a narrative review[J]. J Wound Care, 2020，29(7)：408-418.
[10]	翟明翠，刘锐，井维斌，等. 超声清创治疗慢性创面的疗效观察[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2019，14(4)：275-279.
[11]	Campitiello F, Mancone M, Corte AD, et al. An evaluation of an ultrasonic debridement system in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: a case series[J]. J Wound Care, 2018，27(4)：222-228.
[12]	Oliveira A, Simoes S, Ascenso A, et al. Therapeutic advances in wound healing[J]. J Dermatolog Treat, 2022，33(1)：2-22.
[13]	季超，肖仕初. 负压伤口疗法在创面治疗中的临床应用及其相关研究进展[J]. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志，2022，38(6)：585-589.
[14]	Revesz ES, Altorjay A, Montsko V, et al. Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy: minimum five-year follow-up and review of the literature[J]. Jt Dis Relat Surg, 2022，33(1)：51-56.
[15]	Van Rysselberghe NL, Gonzalez CA, Calderon C, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy for extremity open wound management: a review of the literature[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2022，36(Suppl 4)：S6-S11.
[16]	Stanley BJ. Negative pressure wound therapy[J]. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract, 2017，47(6)：1203-1220.
[17]	Thomas DC, Tsu CL, Nain RA, et al. The role of debridement in wound bed preparation in chronic wound: a narrative review[J]. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2021，71：102876.
[18]	Mirzaei R, Ranjbar R. Hijacking host components for bacterial biofilm formation: an advanced mechanism[J]. Int Immunopharmacol, 2022，103：108471.
[19]	Tewarie L, Chernigov N, Goetzenich A, et al. The effect of ultrasound-assisted debridement combined with vacuum pump therapy in deep sternal wound infections[J]. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2018，24(3)：139-146.
[20]	吕国忠，杨敏烈. 规范应用负压伤口疗法提高创面修复水平[J]. 中华烧伤杂志，2020，36(7)：523-527.
[21]	Zou Q, Wang W, Li Q, et al. Effect of ultrasound debridement on serum inflammatory factors and bFGF, EGF expression in wound tissues[J]. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2019，29(3)：222-225.
[22]	Haga M, Inoue H, Shindo S. Treatment of prosthetic vascular graft infection in the groin with ultrasound debridement: A case report[J]. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2020，60：68-71.
[1]	Loo Y L, Goh B, Jeffery S. An overview of the use of bromelain-based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid^®) in deep partial and full thickness burns: Appraising the evidence[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2018，39(6)：932-938.
[2]	王磊，蔡玉辉，胡克苏，等. 水动力清创系统用于深Ⅱ度烧伤创面治疗临床疗效的回顾性研究[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2021，16(3)：245-250.
[3]	张国安，孙永华，闫汝蕴. 早期保守去痂延期植皮治疗颜面深度烧伤[J]. 中华烧伤杂志，2001，17(6)：327-329.
[4]	冯永强，王德昌，霍然，等. 磨痂术在深Ⅱ度烧伤创面早期处理中的应用研究进展[J]. 中华烧伤杂志，2011，27(3)：202-204.
[5]	杨帆，杨宁，程天平，等. 超声清创刀联合负压创面系统治疗糖尿病足溃疡效果及其机制[J]. 实用医学杂志，2018，34(8)：1239-1243.
[6]	黄梅英，李清，肖勍. 超声清创与闭式引流治疗60例压疮患者临床疗效观察[J]. 现代诊断与治疗，2014，25(7)：1610-1611.
[7]	尹会男，柴家科，李利根. 超声清创系统结合负压创面疗法在骨外露创面中的应用[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2011，6(2)：239-246.

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄(岁)	致伤原因(例)				烧伤部位(例)
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁)	火焰烧伤	热液烫伤	化学烧伤	电击伤	前后躯干	四肢
治疗组	31	19	12	33.26±9.25	10	16	3	2	11	20
对照组	30	19	11	31.80±10.36	9	15	4	2	12	18
t/χ²值		0.027		0.580	0.211				0.132
P值		0.869		0.389	0.976				0.716

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄(岁)	致伤原因(例)				烧伤部位(例)
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁)	火焰烧伤	热液烫伤	化学烧伤	电击伤	前后躯干	四肢
治疗组	31	19	12	33.26±9.25	10	16	3	2	11	20
对照组	30	19	11	31.80±10.36	9	15	4	2	12	18
t/χ²值		0.027		0.580	0.211				0.132
P值		0.869		0.389	0.976				0.716

组别	例数	烧伤总面积(%TBSA)	溶痂创面面积(%TBSA)	开始溶痂时间(d)
治疗组	31	30.2610.72	8.584.28	12.412.56
对照组	30	29.039.32	7.734.31	11.872.27
t值		0.475	0.769	0.890
P值		0.725	0.992	0.422

组别	例数	烧伤总面积(%TBSA)	溶痂创面面积(%TBSA)	开始溶痂时间(d)
治疗组	31	30.2610.72	8.584.28	12.412.56
对照组	30	29.039.32	7.734.31	11.872.27
t值		0.475	0.769	0.890
P值		0.725	0.992	0.422

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export