中华烧伤杂志
中華燒傷雜誌
중화소상잡지
16
2013年
1期
37-40
,共4页
林国安%杨晓东%秦书理%李文军%赵广贺
林國安%楊曉東%秦書理%李文軍%趙廣賀
림국안%양효동%진서리%리문군%조엄하
烧伤%年龄因素%半数致死烧伤面积
燒傷%年齡因素%半數緻死燒傷麵積
소상%년령인소%반수치사소상면적
Burns%Age factors%Median lethal burn area
目的 探讨年龄对烧伤患者LA50的影响. 方法 (1)将笔者单位1958年12月一2004年12月收治的23 073例患者分为25个年龄段,采用SPSS 11.0统计软件中的Probit模块通过概率单位回归方法,分别计算各年龄段患者烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50.(2)合并LA50相近的年龄段形成4个新的年龄段再分别计算烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50及其95％置信区间(CI).(3)根据入院时间,将患者分为A组(1958年12月1日-1983年12月31日入院)和B组(1984年1月1日-2004年12月31日入院),分别计算2组患者4个新的年龄段烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50及其95％ CI. 结果 (1)25个年龄段患者烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50:小于或等于5岁偏低,5岁以后有所提高,15岁后明显提高,60岁以后又明显下降.(2)合并后4个年龄段患者烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50最低者,分别为大于60岁(50.90％ TBSA)和小于或等于5岁年龄段(35.81％ TBSA),最高者,为大于15岁且小于或等于60岁年龄段(89.38％、59.22％ TBSA).4个年龄段患者烧伤总面积、Ⅲ度面积LA50总体比较,差异均有统计学意义.烧伤总面积LA50的95％ CI从低龄到高龄依次为56.87％ ～64.69％、64.46％～74.36％、85.89％ ～93.37％、44.55％～60.73％ TBSA,Ⅲ度面积LA50的95％ C1依次为32.67％～39.69％、40.86％～50.41％、55.27％ ～ 63.85％、32.46％ ～54.86％TBSA.(3)A组患者烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50分别为69.61％、39.79％TBSA,明显低于B组的98.94％、73.23％ TBSA.2组内不同年龄段患者LA50差异仍然存在,2组间各年龄段患者LA50变化趋势基本一致.除去大于5岁且小于或等于15岁患者烧伤总面积LA50和大于60岁患者Ⅲ度面积LA50外,2组间其余年龄段患者之间烧伤总面积和Ⅲ度面积LA50比较,差异具有统计学意义.2组中小于或等于5岁、大于15岁且小于或等于60岁及大于60岁患者烧伤总面积LA50的95％ CI分别为48.38％ ～ 56.07％与68.68％～81.35％ TBSA、75.91％ ～ 84.89％与97.09％ ～ 110.45％ TBSA、30.08％ ～45.08％与60.67％ ～ 102.69％ TBSA,2组中小于或等于5岁、大于5岁且小于或等于15岁、大于15岁且小于或等于60岁患者Ⅲ度面积LA50的95％ CI分别为27.48％ ～ 34.69％与42.09％～54.03％ TBSA、34.78％ ～46.43％与49.62％～69.47％ TBSA、43.98％～51.77％与66.43％～77.99％TBSA. 结论 年龄是影响LA50的重要因素之一,各年龄段LA50随着医疗技术的进步而提高,但年龄对LA50的影响不会因治疗水平的提升而明显改变.
目的 探討年齡對燒傷患者LA50的影響. 方法 (1)將筆者單位1958年12月一2004年12月收治的23 073例患者分為25箇年齡段,採用SPSS 11.0統計軟件中的Probit模塊通過概率單位迴歸方法,分彆計算各年齡段患者燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50.(2)閤併LA50相近的年齡段形成4箇新的年齡段再分彆計算燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50及其95％置信區間(CI).(3)根據入院時間,將患者分為A組(1958年12月1日-1983年12月31日入院)和B組(1984年1月1日-2004年12月31日入院),分彆計算2組患者4箇新的年齡段燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50及其95％ CI. 結果 (1)25箇年齡段患者燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50:小于或等于5歲偏低,5歲以後有所提高,15歲後明顯提高,60歲以後又明顯下降.(2)閤併後4箇年齡段患者燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50最低者,分彆為大于60歲(50.90％ TBSA)和小于或等于5歲年齡段(35.81％ TBSA),最高者,為大于15歲且小于或等于60歲年齡段(89.38％、59.22％ TBSA).4箇年齡段患者燒傷總麵積、Ⅲ度麵積LA50總體比較,差異均有統計學意義.燒傷總麵積LA50的95％ CI從低齡到高齡依次為56.87％ ～64.69％、64.46％～74.36％、85.89％ ～93.37％、44.55％～60.73％ TBSA,Ⅲ度麵積LA50的95％ C1依次為32.67％～39.69％、40.86％～50.41％、55.27％ ～ 63.85％、32.46％ ～54.86％TBSA.(3)A組患者燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50分彆為69.61％、39.79％TBSA,明顯低于B組的98.94％、73.23％ TBSA.2組內不同年齡段患者LA50差異仍然存在,2組間各年齡段患者LA50變化趨勢基本一緻.除去大于5歲且小于或等于15歲患者燒傷總麵積LA50和大于60歲患者Ⅲ度麵積LA50外,2組間其餘年齡段患者之間燒傷總麵積和Ⅲ度麵積LA50比較,差異具有統計學意義.2組中小于或等于5歲、大于15歲且小于或等于60歲及大于60歲患者燒傷總麵積LA50的95％ CI分彆為48.38％ ～ 56.07％與68.68％～81.35％ TBSA、75.91％ ～ 84.89％與97.09％ ～ 110.45％ TBSA、30.08％ ～45.08％與60.67％ ～ 102.69％ TBSA,2組中小于或等于5歲、大于5歲且小于或等于15歲、大于15歲且小于或等于60歲患者Ⅲ度麵積LA50的95％ CI分彆為27.48％ ～ 34.69％與42.09％～54.03％ TBSA、34.78％ ～46.43％與49.62％～69.47％ TBSA、43.98％～51.77％與66.43％～77.99％TBSA. 結論 年齡是影響LA50的重要因素之一,各年齡段LA50隨著醫療技術的進步而提高,但年齡對LA50的影響不會因治療水平的提升而明顯改變.
목적 탐토년령대소상환자LA50적영향. 방법 (1)장필자단위1958년12월일2004년12월수치적23 073례환자분위25개년령단,채용SPSS 11.0통계연건중적Probit모괴통과개솔단위회귀방법,분별계산각년령단환자소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50.(2)합병LA50상근적년령단형성4개신적년령단재분별계산소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50급기95％치신구간(CI).(3)근거입원시간,장환자분위A조(1958년12월1일-1983년12월31일입원)화B조(1984년1월1일-2004년12월31일입원),분별계산2조환자4개신적년령단소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50급기95％ CI. 결과 (1)25개년령단환자소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50:소우혹등우5세편저,5세이후유소제고,15세후명현제고,60세이후우명현하강.(2)합병후4개년령단환자소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50최저자,분별위대우60세(50.90％ TBSA)화소우혹등우5세년령단(35.81％ TBSA),최고자,위대우15세차소우혹등우60세년령단(89.38％、59.22％ TBSA).4개년령단환자소상총면적、Ⅲ도면적LA50총체비교,차이균유통계학의의.소상총면적LA50적95％ CI종저령도고령의차위56.87％ ～64.69％、64.46％～74.36％、85.89％ ～93.37％、44.55％～60.73％ TBSA,Ⅲ도면적LA50적95％ C1의차위32.67％～39.69％、40.86％～50.41％、55.27％ ～ 63.85％、32.46％ ～54.86％TBSA.(3)A조환자소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50분별위69.61％、39.79％TBSA,명현저우B조적98.94％、73.23％ TBSA.2조내불동년령단환자LA50차이잉연존재,2조간각년령단환자LA50변화추세기본일치.제거대우5세차소우혹등우15세환자소상총면적LA50화대우60세환자Ⅲ도면적LA50외,2조간기여년령단환자지간소상총면적화Ⅲ도면적LA50비교,차이구유통계학의의.2조중소우혹등우5세、대우15세차소우혹등우60세급대우60세환자소상총면적LA50적95％ CI분별위48.38％ ～ 56.07％여68.68％～81.35％ TBSA、75.91％ ～ 84.89％여97.09％ ～ 110.45％ TBSA、30.08％ ～45.08％여60.67％ ～ 102.69％ TBSA,2조중소우혹등우5세、대우5세차소우혹등우15세、대우15세차소우혹등우60세환자Ⅲ도면적LA50적95％ CI분별위27.48％ ～ 34.69％여42.09％～54.03％ TBSA、34.78％ ～46.43％여49.62％～69.47％ TBSA、43.98％～51.77％여66.43％～77.99％TBSA. 결론 년령시영향LA50적중요인소지일,각년령단LA50수착의료기술적진보이제고,단년령대LA50적영향불회인치료수평적제승이명현개변.
Objective To discuss the influence of age on the LA50 (the burn area lethal to 50％ of patients) of burn patients.Methods (1) Twenty-three thousand and seventy-three burn patients hospitalized in our center from December 1958 to December 2004 were enrolled,and they were divided into 25age groups.LA50 values of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients in each age group were computed with probit regression method with Probit analysis of SPSS 11.0.(2) Those age groups with similar LA50values were merged into one age group; thus 4 new age groups were formed.LA50 and its 95％ confidence interval (CI) of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients in each age group were computed respectively.(3) All the patients were divided into group A (admitted from 1 December 1958 to 31 December 1983) and group B (admitted from 1 January 1984 to 31 December 2004) according to the admission time.LA50 and its 95％ CI of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients in each age group of groups A and B were computed respectively.Results (1) LA50 values of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients among the 25 age groups were low in age groups younger than or equal to 5 years,which increased in age groups older than 5 years,distinctly higher in age groups older than 15 years,and they became lower in age groups older than 60 years.(2) LA50 values of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients in the 4 merged age groups were lowest in age groups older than 60 years (50.90％ TBSA) and younger than or equal to 5 years(35.81％ TBSA),and highest in age group older than 15 years and younger than or equal to 60 years (89.38％ and 59.22％ TBSA).There were statistically significant differences in LA50 of total and fullthickness burn areas of patients among 4 merged age groups [with 95％ CI values of LA50 of total burn areas of patients in age groups ranging from young to old respectively (56.87 to 64.69) ％,(64.46 to 74.36) ％,(85.89 to 93.37) ％,(44.55 to 60.73) ％ TBSA ; with 95％ CI values of LA50 of full-thickness burn areas of patients in age groups from young to old respectively (32.67 to 39.69) ％,(40.86 to 50.41) ％,(55.27to 63.85) ％,(32.46 to 54.86) ％ TBSA].(3) LA50 values of total and full-thickness burn areas of patients in group B (98.94％ and 73.23％ TBSA) were significantly higher than those in group A (69.61％and 39.79％ TBSA).There were differences in LA50 values of patients among different age groups in both group A and group B.The variation trend of LA50 values of patients among the 4 age groups in groups A and B was almost the same.Except for LA50 of total burn areas of patients in age group older than 5 years and younger than or equal to 15 years and LA50 of full-thickness burn areas of patients in age group older than 60 years,there were statistically significant differences in the LA50 of total and full-thickness burn areas of the other patients between group A and group B [with 95％ CI of LA50 of total burn areas of patients of younger than or equal to 5 years,older than 15 years and younger than or equal to 60 years,and older than 60 years respectively (48.38 to 56.07)％ and (68.68 to 81.35)％ TBSA,(75.91 to 84.89)％ and (97.09 to 110.45) ％ TBSA,(30.08 to 45.08) ％ and (60.67 to 102.69) ％ TBSA ; with 95％ CI of LA50 of fullthickness burn areas of patients of younger than or equal to 5 years,older than 5 years and younger than or equal to 15 years,older than 15 years and younger than or equal to 60 years respectively (27.48 to 34.69) ％and (42.09 to 54.03)％ TBSA,(34.78 to 46.43)％ and (49.62 to 69.47)％ TBSA,(43.98 to 51.77)％ and (66.43 to 77.99)％ TBSA].Conclusions Age is one of the important factors that influence the LA50 of burn patients.LA50 in different age groups increases with the development of medical technology; however,the influence of age on LA50 is not visibly changed by the advance of treatment.
