The Journal of surgical research · 2015
The use of skin substitutes and burn care-a survey.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Wurzer Paul, Keil Hildegard, Branski Ludwik K, Parvizi Daryousch, Clayton Robert P, Finnerty Celeste C, Herndon David N, Kamolz Lars P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our Internet survey was to assess the preferences of burn specialists who use skin substitutes in patients with burns covering 20% or more of their total body surface area (TBSA).
METHODS: An open, voluntary Internet-based cross-sectional survey was performed. Responses to 19 noncompulsory questions, and participant career and location information were collected.
RESULTS: One hundred eleven specialists from 36 countries responded to our questionnaire. Sixty participants were located in Europe (54%), followed by 31 (28%) in North America, 15 (14%) in Asia, three (3%) in South America, one (1%) in Africa, and one (1%) in Australia. The importance of skin substitutes in medium-sized burns (covering 20%-60% TBSA) was rated as "essential" by 28% and "desirable" by 56% of the respondents. In severe burns >60% of TBSA, 81% of responders rated the use of skin substitutes as "essential" and 14% as "desirable". Skin substitutes were used in daily clinical practice by 96% of all participants. Biological and synthetic dressings were used by 53%. A majority (86%) think that biological dressings do not pose a risk to patients. Allografts represent the most frequently used wound coverage (51%), followed by xenografts (28%). All participants of the survey indicated that as of yet, there is no ideal skin substitute available.
CONCLUSIONS: Split-thickness autografts still represent the most used wound cover for definitive treatment of severe burns. However, creation and implementation of an ideal skin substitute have yet to be achieved and therefore should be the focus of future work.
METHODS: An open, voluntary Internet-based cross-sectional survey was performed. Responses to 19 noncompulsory questions, and participant career and location information were collected.
RESULTS: One hundred eleven specialists from 36 countries responded to our questionnaire. Sixty participants were located in Europe (54%), followed by 31 (28%) in North America, 15 (14%) in Asia, three (3%) in South America, one (1%) in Africa, and one (1%) in Australia. The importance of skin substitutes in medium-sized burns (covering 20%-60% TBSA) was rated as "essential" by 28% and "desirable" by 56% of the respondents. In severe burns >60% of TBSA, 81% of responders rated the use of skin substitutes as "essential" and 14% as "desirable". Skin substitutes were used in daily clinical practice by 96% of all participants. Biological and synthetic dressings were used by 53%. A majority (86%) think that biological dressings do not pose a risk to patients. Allografts represent the most frequently used wound coverage (51%), followed by xenografts (28%). All participants of the survey indicated that as of yet, there is no ideal skin substitute available.
CONCLUSIONS: Split-thickness autografts still represent the most used wound cover for definitive treatment of severe burns. However, creation and implementation of an ideal skin substitute have yet to be achieved and therefore should be the focus of future work.