摘要：目的:本研究探究“补托法”联合湿润烧伤膏换药、单纯湿润烧伤膏换药两种干预方法对Ⅲ、Ⅳ期压疮创面基质金属蛋白酶2(MMP2)、基质金属蛋白酶2抑制因子(TIMP2)蛋白表达的影响及临床疗效的差异。方法:选取符合本研究纳入标准的60例压疮患者,将其随机分成治疗组和对照组2组,每组30例。两组患者均予基础治疗;实验组用湿润烧伤膏外用+八珍汤加减,对照组仅外用湿润烧伤膏换药,两组换药频率均为2次/天,连续3周。于治疗第0、7、14、21日根据压疮情况评分表评分、创面缩小率、创面腐肉净化时间及创面生肌时间的差异来观察两组临床疗效,免疫组化(IHC)分析MMP2、TIMP2的表达情况。结果:本研究过程中治疗组脱落7例,对照组脱落8例,最终完成45例。(1)有效率:治疗组总有效率95.65%,显效率30.43%;对照组总有效率36.36%,显效率4.55%,治疗组创面有效率及显效率明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。(2)创面缩小率:两组治疗第1周创面缩小率方面疗效相当(P>0.05),治疗2、3周后,治疗组创面缩小率明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。(3)创面情况总评分:组间比较,治疗前及治疗第1、2周,两组在创面情况总评分方面无显著差异(P>0.05),第3周,治疗组创面情况评分低于对照组(P<0.05);组内比较,两组创面情况评分均在治疗第2、3周与治疗前相比有显著差异(P<0.05)。(4)各项评分比较:组间比较:基于创面面积评分、渗液情况评分、组织类型评分,两组在治疗1、2周时无显著差异(P>0.05),在治疗第3周,开始显示出差异(P<0.05),可认为治疗组在改善创面面积、渗液情况、组织类型方面疗效优于对照组;基于创面深度进行评分,在不同治疗阶段,两组在创面深度方面的评分均无差异(P>0.05);组内对比,治疗组在创面面积、渗液情况、创面深度、创面组织类型方面,在治疗第3周的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),对于组织类型来说,在各阶段均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。对照组不同治疗阶段,在创面面积方面在第3周开始有显著差异(P<0.05),对于渗液情况,在治疗第2、3周与治疗前相比具有统计学差异(P<0.05),对于创面组织类型,在不同治疗阶段的差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),但对照组不同治疗阶段创面深度无显著差异(P>0.05)。(5)两组在创面腐肉净化时间及创面生肌时间方面的差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),即...

摘要：目的:探讨MEBO/MEBT对小儿烧伤创面脓毒症的疗效方法:选择小儿烧伤创面脓毒症患儿,采取MEBT/MEBO治疗,观察其疗效。结果:1、转归:mebo/mebt治疗后11例治愈,1例大面积烧伤50%TBSA,因感染不能有效控制,后期出现MODF死亡。2、细菌学调查结果多重耐药的绿脓杆菌6例,全耐药绿脓杆菌2例.大肠埃希氏菌2例,孢曼不动杆菌1例。结论:我们认为对中小面积小儿烧伤创面脓毒症,一经诊断,宜尽早改变创面处理方法。MEBT/MEBT是一种简便可行的有效方法,值得推广应用。 更多 还原 __vpn_eval__((function(){ AbstractFilter('ChDivSummary', 'ChDivSummaryMore', 'ChDivSummaryReset'); }).toString().slice(12, -2))

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：One hundred and thirty-eight (138) patients, with five hundred and sixty-six (566) different burn sites with different degrees, severity and locations, were enrolled to a multicenter clinical trial at 25 study centers. The goal of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of MEBO (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment) in the treatment of burn wound. Various parameters were studied including: (i) healing time, (ii) need for pain killers, (iii) consumption of i. v. Fluids, (iv) use of systemic antibiotics and (v) aesthetic appearance. There was remarkable decrease in the healing time and most patients either did not need any pain killer or were relieved with only mild analgesics, except in few cases of deep second degree and third degree burns. A decrease in the volume of i. v. fluids needed was also reported. Only 19% of cases developed clinical infection, especially in those who were not treated with MEBO immediately post burn. Even though systemic antibiotic treatment was prophylactically implemented in most cases as a routine measure, 32 cases did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis with MEBO and yet did not develop any infection. The aesthetic appearance reported was very acceptable. This treatment modality was not associated with any side effects, and patient discomfort during application and change was negligible. Thus, MEBO treatment was associated with excellent and relatively faster healing, low incidence of wound infection, and excellent patient compliance.