【摘要】目的 比较不同术式整形治疗在烧伤患者中的应用效果。方法 以本院

[Abstract] Objective To compare the effects of different surgical plastic treatments in burn patients. Methods Based on our hospital, 94 burn patients were selected as experimental subjects from February 2017 to April 2020. Among them, 47 patients who underwent compound skin grafting were used as control group, and 47 patients who received soft tissue expansion treatment were used as observation Group, SPSS22.0 statistical software was used to compare the wound healing time, skin blood supply recovery time and satisfaction of the two groups. Results The wound healing time of the observation group was (12.34±2.79) days and the skin blood supply recovery time (18.05±3.12) days were significantly shorter than those of the control group (16.88±4.10)d and (24.37±3.79)d (P

Objective To compare the application effects of different types of plastic surgery in burn patients. Methods In February 2017-April 2020, 94 burn patients were selected as experimental subjects, of which 47 patients treated with compound skin grafting were treated as control groups, 47 patients receiving soft tissue dilation therapy were taken as observation groups, and two groups of wound healing time, skin blood transport recovery time and satisfaction were compared using SPSS22.0 statistical software. Results The healing time (12.34±2.79)d and skin blood recovery time (18.05±3.12)d were significantly shorter than the control group (16.88±4.10) d, (24.37±3.79) d (P).

[Abstract] Objective To compare the effect of different plastic surgery in burn patients. Methods from February 2017 to April 2020, 94 cases of burn patients were selected as the experimental objects, 47 cases of patients with composite skin grafting as the control group, 47 cases of patients receiving soft tissue expansion treatment as the observation group. The wound healing time, skin blood supply recovery time and satisfaction of the two groups were compared by using spss22.0 statistical software. Results the wound healing time and skin blood supply recovery time of the observation group were (12.34 ± 2.79) D and (18.05 ± 3.12) d, which were significantly shorter than those of the control group (16.88 ± 4.10) D and (24.37 ± 3.79) d (P < 0.05)<br>