水动力清创治疗烧伤的效果：随机对照试验的系统评价

赵建磊, 赵婧琦, 刘唱, 黄靖竣, 金升元

Efficacy of hydrodynamic debridement in the treatment of burns: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

ZHAO Jianlei, ZHAO Jingqi, LIU Chang, HUANG Jingjun, JIN Shengyuan

表1 纳入文献的基本特征

Tab 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies on hydrosurgery debridement and conventional debridement

Study Study design Hydrosurgery debridement group Conventional debridement group Outcome n Age/year TBSA/% n Age/year TBSA/% NAWAR et al, 2022[29] RCT 20 21.20±11.10 23.30±8.30 20 19.00±9.20 24.50±9.60 ② LEGEMAT et al, 2022[13] RCT 137 42.89±25.47 8.41±7.49 137 42.89±25.47 8.41±7.49 ⑦ HYLAND et al, 2015[14] RCT 30 ‒ ‒ 31 ‒ ‒ ⑦ GRAVANTE et al, 2007[16] RCT 42 46.00±26.90 25.00±14.00 45 50.00±28.40 23.00±16.00 ① GUO et al, 2022[15] RCT 30 ‒ ‒ 30 ‒ ‒ ① CHANG, 2022[24] RCT 41 40.32±10.66 ‒ 42 40.56±10.72 ‒ ①②③④⑤ JI et al, 2019[28] RCT 40 44.23±6.23 19.38±5.68 40 44.28±6.24 18.75±6.05 ①②③④⑤⑥ LIU et al, 2016[7] RCT 34 41.00±12.00 73.00±11.00 42 40.00±12.00 74.00±12.00 ①②③④⑤ LIU et al, 2024[23] RCT 41 41.15±6.82 23.06±2.12 41 41.93±6.50 22.78±2.35 ①②④⑥ LIU et al, 2023[27] RCT 60 ‒ ‒ 60 ‒ ‒ ①⑥ QIU et al, 2022[6] RCT 37 42.93±1.91 52.37±5.79 36 42.91±1.94 52.33±5.81 ①②④ WANG, 2021[26] RCT 20 45.67±2.11 65.21±0.51 20 45.25±2.46 65.25±0.56 ①⑦ XIAO et al, 2016[22] RCT 32 27.10±6.80 ‒ 32 28.00±7.40 ‒ ④ XU et al, 2016[11] RCT 37 44.00±27.00 37.00±14.00 41 50.00±19.00 34.00±16.00 ⑥ ZHANG, 2024[25] RCT 21 44.57±7.70 66.86±9.64 22 43.59±9.89 67.18±8.61 ①②③④⑤