4.4 Article

Cultured epithelial autografts in extensive burn coverage of severely traumatized patients: a five year single-center experience with 30 patients

期刊

BURNS
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 379-387

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0305-4179(99)00143-6

关键词

burns; wound repair; cultured epithelial autografts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We report recent five-year experience in a large, single center series of severely burned and otherwise traumatized patients given cultured epithelial autografts (CEA) from a single commercial laboratory. Summary background data: Initial optimism over CEA application has been tempered by subsequent reports asserting that this modality is unreliable and expensive. Discussion continues over its clinical role. Methods: From 1991 to 1996, CEA were applied to a mean 37 +/- 17% of total body surface area (TBSA) of 30 patients. These patients had 78 +/- 10% average burn size, 65 +/- 16% average third-degree burn size, 90% prevalence of endoscopically confirmed inhalation injury and 37% prevalence of other serious conditions. Results: CEA achieved permanent coverage of a mean 26 +/- 15% of TBSA, an area greater than that covered by conventional autografts (a mean 25 +/- 10% of TBSA). Survival was 90% in these severely burned and otherwise traumatized patients. Final CEA take was a mean 69 +/- 23%. In subset analyses, only younger age was significantly associated with better CEA take (p = 0.0001 in univariate analysis, p < 0.04 in multivariate analysis, Student's t-test). Conclusions: Epicel CEA successfully provided extensive, permanent burn coverage in severely traumatized patients, proving an important adjunct to achievement of a high survival rate in a patient population whose prognosis previously had been poor. In our experience CEA appear to have a very high beneficial value in the management of burns > 60% TBSA. In some cases studied it is very likely that CEA was a life-saving treatment. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据