Suppr超能文献

皮肤移植供区敷料的Meta分析与系统评价及未来指南

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Skin Graft Donor-site Dressings with Future Guidelines.

作者信息

Serebrakian Arman T, Pickrell Brent B, Varon David E, Mohamadi Amin, Grinstaff Mark W, Rodriguez Edward K, Nazarian Ara, Halvorson Eric G, Sinha Indranil

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies and Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

出版信息

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Sep 24;6(9):e1928. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001928. eCollection 2018 Sep.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many types of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor-site dressings are available with little consensus from the literature on the optimal dressing type. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the most recent outcomes regarding moist and nonmoist dressings for STSG donor sites.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to search for comparative studies evaluating different STSG donor-site dressings in adult subjects published between 2008 and 2017. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were collected on donor-site pain, rate of epithelialization, infection rate, cosmetic appearance, and cost. Meta-analysis was performed for reported pain scores.

RESULTS

A total of 41 articles were included comparing 44 dressings. Selected studies included analysis of donor-site pain (36 of 41 articles), rate of epithelialization (38 of 41), infection rate (25 of 41), cosmetic appearance (20 of 41), and cost (10 of 41). Meta-analysis revealed moist dressings result in lower pain (pooled effect size = 1.44). A majority of articles (73%) reported better reepithelialization rates with moist dressings.

CONCLUSION

The literature on STSG donor-site dressings has not yet identified an ideal dressing. Although moist dressings provide superior outcomes with regard to pain control and wound healing, there continues to be a lack of standardization. The increasing commercial availability and marketing of novel dressings necessitates the development of standardized research protocols to design better comparison studies and assess true efficacy.

摘要

背景

有多种类型的中厚皮片(STSG)供皮区敷料可供选择,但文献中对于最佳敷料类型几乎没有达成共识。本系统评价的目的是分析关于STSG供皮区使用湿性和非湿性敷料的最新研究结果。

方法

对PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行全面的系统评价,以检索2008年至2017年间发表的评估成年受试者不同STSG供皮区敷料的比较研究。使用Jadad量表评估随机对照试验的质量。收集有关供皮区疼痛、上皮化率、感染率、外观和成本的数据。对报告的疼痛评分进行荟萃分析。

结果

共纳入41篇比较44种敷料的文章。所选研究包括对供皮区疼痛(41篇文章中的36篇)、上皮化率(41篇中的38篇)、感染率(41篇中的25篇)、外观(41篇中的20篇)和成本(41篇中的10篇)的分析。荟萃分析显示湿性敷料导致疼痛减轻(合并效应量 = 1.44)。大多数文章(73%)报告湿性敷料的再上皮化率更高。

结论

关于STSG供皮区敷料的文献尚未确定理想的敷料。尽管湿性敷料在疼痛控制和伤口愈合方面提供了更好的效果,但仍然缺乏标准化。新型敷料在商业上的可得性和市场推广不断增加,因此有必要制定标准化的研究方案,以设计更好的比较研究并评估真正的疗效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ebab/6191241/fc3da6633476/gox-6-e1928-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验