The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2021
Efficacy and feasibility of amniotic membrane for the treatment of burn wounds: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Chao, Xiong Ai Bing, He Xiao Chuan, Ding Xiao Bin, Tian Xin Li, Li Ying, Yan Hong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Burns cause a huge economic burden to society, and the wounds can be very difficult to manage. Clinical experience suggests that amniotic membrane (AM) is an economical and effective biological dressing for burns. However, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been published on such use. We aimed to evaluate the role of AM dressings in burn wounds.
METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted in March 2020. The search was conducted to identify randomized control trials that compared selected features of AM with those of other dressings, such as silver sulfadiazine, polyurethane membrane, and honey. For skin-grafted wounds, we compared AM-covered skin grafts and traditional staple-fixed skin grafts. Outcomes of interest for the efficacy analysis included wound infection, pain, itching, scarring, and healing time. The number of adverse events in each treatment group, the rate of withdrawal because of adverse effects, the cost of treatment, and patient acceptability were assessed for the feasibility analysis.
RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials with 816 participants total were identified in our review. Amniotic membrane treatment was more effective than conventional methods, silver sulfadiazine, and polyurethane membrane in treating burn wounds, but AM appears to be less effective than honey. No reports of AM-related disease transmission or adverse reactions were described in the included articles.
CONCLUSION: Amniotic membrane has beneficial effects in treating burn wounds; however, the evidence needs to be strengthened by further robust randomized controlled trials.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis, level III.
METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted in March 2020. The search was conducted to identify randomized control trials that compared selected features of AM with those of other dressings, such as silver sulfadiazine, polyurethane membrane, and honey. For skin-grafted wounds, we compared AM-covered skin grafts and traditional staple-fixed skin grafts. Outcomes of interest for the efficacy analysis included wound infection, pain, itching, scarring, and healing time. The number of adverse events in each treatment group, the rate of withdrawal because of adverse effects, the cost of treatment, and patient acceptability were assessed for the feasibility analysis.
RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials with 816 participants total were identified in our review. Amniotic membrane treatment was more effective than conventional methods, silver sulfadiazine, and polyurethane membrane in treating burn wounds, but AM appears to be less effective than honey. No reports of AM-related disease transmission or adverse reactions were described in the included articles.
CONCLUSION: Amniotic membrane has beneficial effects in treating burn wounds; however, the evidence needs to be strengthened by further robust randomized controlled trials.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis, level III.