摘要：目的 :探讨MEBO与重组人表皮细胞生长因子 (Recombinanthumanepidermalgrowth ,rhEGF)治疗烧伤残余创面 ,促进创面愈合的应用效益。方法 :2 0 0 2年 1月～ 2 0 0 4年 2月 ,30例深Ⅱ～Ⅲ度烧伤患者后期残余创面进行随机双盲试验 ,每例患者设A、B两个治疗区 ,A区为MEBO与rhEGF混合治疗区 ,MEBO一支和rhEGF 4 0u/cm ,混合涂在创面上 ,MEBO按 4小时更换新药 ,rhEGF每日一次 ;B区为对照区 ,10 %碘伏清洁创面后外用丁胺卡那霉素换药 ,每日一次。每例患者如A区先愈合 ,B区治疗停止并改为A区治疗方法 ,反之改为B区治疗方法。结果 :30例患者A区先愈合 ,愈合时间129± 1 2天 ,点状小创面 3天有上皮覆盖 ,B区无一例愈合 ,每例患者换药时有分泌物 ,创面有小脓点出现 ,残余创面扩大。结论 :MEBO与rhEGF联合使用是治疗残余创面最好方式 ,值得临床推广。

摘要：目的比较湿润烧伤膏（MEBO）、表皮细胞生长因子（EGF）对自体微粒皮种植修复肉芽创面的临床疗效。方法选取中老年糖尿病、瘫痪、严重全身营养不良的38例患者,其肉芽创面面积大于5 cm2,按取皮面积:创面面积=1:20～30的比例种植自体微粒皮,将38例患者随机分为两组,治疗组15例（MEBO组）,对照组23例（EGF组）,分别用MEBO和EGF换药治疗至创面愈合,观察创面皮岛修复情况及愈合时间。结果肉芽创面经自体微粒皮种植术治疗后,应用MEBO和EGF治疗都能使其愈合,但治疗组（MEBO组）的创面愈合率高于对照组（EGF组）;MEBO组创面生长出皮岛以及愈合所需时间较EGF'组明显缩短（P<0.01）。结论肉芽创面经自体微粒皮种植术治疗后,应用MEBO治疗较EGF更能有效地促进创面修复。

摘要：体表慢性难愈合创面(俗称溃疡)是由一系列创伤和疾病所致,这类创面具有病程长、对外观影响大以及并发症多等特点。中医外治溃疡历史悠久,近年来,我们在临床上应用MEBT/MEBO治疗多种慢性难愈合皮肤创面,取得了较好的疗效[1]。本实验进一步探讨MEBT/MEBO对皮肤溃疡局部血管内皮细胞粗面内质网结构的影响,以期可以从不同侧面揭示

摘要：The present study aimed to investigate the expression and predictive value of serum hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in patients with burns following treatment. A total of 84 patients with burns treated in Jinan City People's Hospital (Jinan, China) between June 2015 and August 2017 were selected and their clinical information was collected. The expression levels of HIF-1α and VEGF before and after treatment were detected via ELISA, and HIF-1α and VEGF levels in patients with effective and ineffective treatment were compared. The predictive values of HIF-1α and VEGF in clinical efficacy were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and independent risk factors affecting treatment inefficacy were analyzed via multivariate logistic regression. It was revealed that HIF-1α decreased significantly (P<0.05) while VEGF significantly increased in patients after treatment. Patients with effective treatment presented significantly lower HIF-1α levels and higher VEGF levels compared with those with ineffective treatment. The ROC curve indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) of HIF-1α for treatment efficacy was 0.795, the 95% CI was 0.666-0.924, the specificity and sensitivity were 68.75 and 80.88%, respectively, and the Youden index was 49.63%. For VEGF, the AUC, 95% CI, specificity, sensitivity and Youden index were 0.826, 0.725-0.928, 68.75, 82.35 and 51.10% respectively. Moreover, under the joint detection of HIF-1α and VEGF, the AUC was 0.847, 95% CI was 0.746-0.947, specificity and sensitivity were 87.50 and 66.18%, respectively, with a Youden index of 53.68%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that higher HIF-1α level, lower VEGF level and higher burn degree before treatment were independent risk factors for treatment inefficacy. HIF-1α levels decreased and VEGF levels increased in burn patients after treatment. HIF-1α and VEGF before treatment may therefore serve as predictors for treatment efficacy.