背景:分裂厚度皮肤移植物(STSG)1整合率易于改善。在移植前应适当解决感染和/或生物膜,以提高移植的可能性。结合技术辅助,如荧光(FL)2成像(MoleciumLight®),精确定位细菌负荷高于104CFU/gr的区域,移植部位的评估和准备可以产生更好的结果.
方法:这种单中心,前瞻性观察性研究包括成年烧伤患者,这些患者先前感染的伤口被认为是临床和微生物清洁的,因此是移植的候选人。在嫁接之前,FL成像评估(手术团队不了解)中高细菌负荷(>104CFU/gr)阳性区域。术中,手术团队从接受部位收集了标准拭子样本.术后,在2D示意图上重叠并测量FL的阳性/阴性区域以及移植物取出和失败的区域(cm2)。评估了FL成像和拭子采样与移植物结局相关的性能和准确性。
结果:38名患者纳入研究。平均全身表面积(TBSA)3受累为14.5±12.4%[范围0.8-40.2%]。登记的受试者中有25/38具有完全的移植物接受,而13具有部分移植物损失。没有完全的损失。FL成像在100%的损失中与31%(4/13)的拭子微生物学中呈阳性。FL成像被发现有86%的灵敏度,特异性98%,72%的PPV,净现值99%,预测整个队列中任何类型或范围的移植物损失的准确率为94%。同时,拭子样本的微生物学敏感性为30%,特异性为76%。
结论:FL成像是评估烧伤患者受体部位和预测皮肤移植结果的准确方法。这些发现表明,FL成像可以为周围的移植物提供更好的决策,从而可能导致更好的结果。
方法:IIA级,治疗性研究。
BACKGROUND: Split-thickness skin graft (STSG)1 integration rates are susceptible to improvement. Infection and/or biofilm should be appropriately addressed prior to grafting to improve the likelihood of graft-take. Incorporating technological aids such as fluorescence (FL)2 imaging (MolecuLight®), which accurately locates areas of bacterial loads above 104 CFU/gr, for graft site assessment and preparation could yield better outcomes.
METHODS: This single-center, prospective observational study included adult burn patients with previously infected wounds that had been deemed clinically and microbiologically clean and were therefore candidates for grafting. Prior to grafting, a FL imaging assessment (blinded to the surgical team) localized areas positive for moderate-high bacterial loads (>104 CFU/gr). Intra-operatively, a standard swab sample from the recipient site was collected by the surgical team. Postoperatively, areas positive/negative for FL and areas of graft take and failure were overlapped and measured (cm2) over a 2D schematic. The performance and accuracy of FL imaging and swab sampling in relation to graft outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS: 38 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean total body surface area (TBSA)3 involvement was 14.5 ± 12.4 % [range 0.8 - 40.2 %]. 25/38 of the subjects enrolled had complete graft take while 13 had partial graft losses. There were no total losses. FL-imaging was positive in 100 % of losses versus 31 % (4/13) of the swab microbiology. FL-imaging was found to have a sensitivity of 86 %, specificity of 98 %, PPV of 72 %, NPV of 99 %, and an accuracy of 94 % for predicting any type or range of graft loss in the entire cohort. Meanwhile, the sensitivity of microbiology from swab samples was 30 %, with a specificity of 76 %.
CONCLUSIONS: FL imaging is an accurate method for assessing recipient sites and predicting the outcome of a skin graft among burn patients. These findings suggest that FL imaging can inform better decision-making surrounding grafts that may lead to better outcomes.
METHODS: Level IIA, Therapeutic study.