三种方法防治深度烧伤后瘢痕增生的临床疗效观察

Observation About Clinical Efficiency of 3 Methods Preventing Scar Hyperplasia in Deep Burned Skin

目的:比较分析应用复春散Ⅱ号、复春散Ⅱ号联合压力疗法及单纯压力疗法3种方法防治深度烧伤愈合后创面瘢痕增生的临床疗效。方法:180例患者分为A、B、C 3组,A组行复春散Ⅱ号外涂治疗,B组行复春散Ⅱ号外涂联合压力疗法治疗,C组行传统压力疗法治疗。3组均于治疗后3个月和6个月对创面瘢痕情况进行评定,计算总有效率。结果:3个月时3组总有效率分别为70.0%、88.3%、71.7%,6个月时3组总有效率分别为91.7%、98.3%、90.0%。A、C两组与B组在3个月和6个月的总有效率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);A组与C组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);每组内3个月和6个月的总有效率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:B组综合治疗方法较A、C组单一治疗疗效更为满意,并且随着治疗时间的延长,瘢痕防治的效果会更好。

Objective：Comparing and analyzing preventing scar hyperplasia efficiency of 3 methods which include A,suffer skin plastered with Fuchunsan Ⅱ B,suffer skin plastered with Fuchunsan Ⅱ union pressure therapy and C,only pressure in cured skin after deep burn wound.Method：180 patients were divided into three groups： A,suffer skin plastered with Fuchunsan Ⅱ B,suffer skin plastered with Fuchunsan Ⅱ union pressure therapy C,only pressure.Judging of scar property at time when the treatment was kept on until 3 months and until 6 months as well.Effective rate for each group was calculated.Result：The effective rates of group A、B、C was 70.0%、88.3%、71.7% respectively at time of 3 months and 91.7%、98.3%、90.0% at time of 6 months.There were significant differences（P0.01） between group B and other two groups when comparing effective rates either at 3 months or at 6 months.There was no significant difference between group A and group C（P0.05）.Within each group,the effective rates at 3 months and the effective rates at 6 months exist significant difference（P0.01）.Conclusion： In group B,Fuchunsan Ⅱ external use combining pressure therapy show the more satisfactory effect to prevent scar hyperplasia than using any method only,as group A or group C.With the extension of treatment time,the effect preventing and treating scar would be more effective in any group.