摘要
本文报告了我院1990年至1995年,应用MEBT治疗217例烧伤,其中最大面积60%,深Ⅱ度50例占23.04%、Ⅲ度19例占8.76%;烧伤95例占43.77%,烫伤83例占38.24%。采用MEBO与京万红进行了比较试验,结果两种药物在浅Ⅱ度烧伤创面无明显统计学差异,在深Ⅱ度至Ⅲ度创面MEBO显示了明显优势,P<0.05,对愈后瘢疤形成率进行了统计学标准化率的计算,结果显示,MEBO标准化率为3.7%,京万红标准化率为9.22%,显著性检验结果显示,P<0.01差别有非常显著意义,即京万红愈后瘢痕形成率明显高于MEBO,提出了6条治疗方法,217例烧伤病例中除一例子伤后10天合并多脏器衰竭上消化造大出血死亡外,余216例全部治愈,通过217例烧伤病人的治疗及意后半年以上复查,证实了MEBO深Ⅱ度创面治疗后,可不留瘢痕的科学正确结论,笔者认为MEBT和MEBO是临床值得推广普及的理想方法和药物。
This paper reports the results of applying MEBOfor treating 217 cases of thermal injury. The largestinjured area was 60%BSA. Among them, 50 caseshad deep second degree wound accounted for23. 04%. 19 cases had third degree wound accountedfor 8. 76%. 95 cases were burned accounted for 43.77% and 83 cases were scalded accounted for 38.24%. The patients were treated with MEBO or Jing-wanhong ointment. A comparison between the effica-cy of the two drugs was made. For superficial seconddegree burn, MEBO showed slight superiority overJingwanhong ointment. (P>0.05). For deep secondand third degree burns MEBO showed significant supe-riority over Jingwanhong ointment (P <0. 05 ). A cal-culation of the statistically standardized rate of theformation of scar post healing showed that MEBO hada standarized rate of scar formation of 3. 7%, whileJingwanhong ointment had a standardized rate of scarformation of 9. 22%. The difference betweery the twogroups was very significant (P<0.01). Jingwanhongointment group had a much higher scar formation ratethan MEBO group.The authors suggested some points for attentionin the course of treatment. One patient died from mul-tiple system organ failure and massive hemorrhage ofupper digestive tract. 216 patients all cured. After fol-lowed up for more than 6 months, MEBO proved toleave no scar after healing for deep second degreeburns.
出处
《中国烧伤创疡杂志》
1995年第4期19-21,60-61,共3页
The Chinese Journal of Burns Wounds & Surface Ulcers