Comparative analysis of the healing dynamics in gunshot versus domestic purulent-infected wounds
https://doi.org/10.5922/2223-2427-2024-9-3-2
Abstract
Aim. To conduct a comparative analysis of the dynamics of healing of gunshot and domestic wounds in the purulent-infected stage, depending on the wound coating used.
Methods. The study examined the treatment outcomes of 30 patients with gunshot and household purulent-infected soft tissue wounds, treated during a special operation in the Donetsk region of Donbass. Among these patients, those with gunshot wounds were military personnel involved in active combat. The gender distribution was 7 women (23 %) and 23 men (77 %), with a mean age of 42.5 years [range: 33.59 to 75 years]. The average Body Mass Index (BMI) of the patients was 27 kg/ m² [range: 25.35 to 28.15 kg/m²].
Results. When comparing the patient groups, notable differences in wound healing rates were observed. The group with the highest healing rate showed significant progress, with wounds healing by 80.7 % by day 15 and 95.8 % by day 30. Another group, which underwent a similar treatment method, also demonstrated a high healing rate, albeit slightly lower: by day 15, wounds had healed by 71.6 % (3.1 % lower than the first group), and by day 30, the healing rate was 93.7 % (2.1 % lower). The groups with the lowest healing rates showed significantly slower progress, with healing rates of 52 % and 47.9 % on day 15, and 87 % and 81.5 % on day 30, respectively
About the Authors
S. S. Dunaevskaya
Professor V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University; Federal Siberian Scientific and Clinical Centre FMBA of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana S. Dunaevskaya, Professor of the Department of General Surgery; Surgeon
1, Partizan Zheleznyak St., Krasnoyarsk, 660022
26, Kolomenskaya St., Krasnoyarsk, 660074
A. A. Kosik
Professor V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University; Federal Siberian Scientific and Clinical Centre FMBA of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Arina A. Kosik, Doctoral Student of the Department of General Surgery; Surgeon
1, Partizan Zheleznyak St., Krasnoyarsk, 660022
26, Kolomenskaya St., Krasnoyarsk, 660074
References
1. Balykova LA, Inchina VI, Tarasova TV, Myandina GI, Hajdar DA, Korovyakova EA, Mosina LM, Saushev IV, Tarasov RS, Bajburina GA, Bajburina DE, Trubicyna IE. Zazhivlenie inficirovannoj kozhnoj rany pri ispol’zovanii Trigonella foenumgraecum na fone eksperimental’noj steroidnoj giperglikemii. Research and Practical Medicine Journal. 2023;2(10):70—79 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17709/2410-1893-2023-10-2-7
2. Vladimirova OV, Lavreshin PM, Minaev SV, Korablina SS, Grigorova AN, Zybinskij IA. Opyt primeneniya pokrytiya «Hitokol» v lechenii inficirovannyh ran razlichnoj etiologii. Glavnyj vrach YUga Rossii = Chief Physician of the South of Russia. 2021;5(80):38—40 (in Russ.).
3. Koloshein NA. Application of Autological Adipose Tissue and its Products in the Treatment of Infected Wounds of Different Gen- esis. Journal of experimental and clinical surgery. 2022;15:3:268— 277 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18499/2070-478X-2022-15-3-268-277
4. Korchagina YuYu, SHevcova AO. Sravnitel’naya harakteristika gnojno-inficirovannyh zabolevanij kozhi i podkozhno-zhirovoj kletchatki po dannym gnojno-septicheskogo hirurgicheskogo otdeleniya BUZ VO «Ramonskaya rajonnaya bol’nica». Youth Innovation Bulletin. 2020;S2:212—213 (in Russ.).
5. Mironov MA, Blinova EV, Stepanenko IS, Blinov DS, Abrosimov AV, Kilmyashkina MF, Dydykin SS, Pakhomov DA, Nelipa MV, Chudaikin AN. A promising approach to optimizing the healing of postoperative infected wounds. Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2018;2(4):23— 28 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/operhirurg2018204123
6. Rahmetova KK, Mishina ES, Vorvul’ AO, Bobyncev II, Dolgincev ME, Bezhin AI. Regenerativnye effekty peptidov Gly-His-Lys и Gly-His-Lys-D-Ala pri kozhnoj inficirovannoj rane. Vestnik RGMU. 2022;2:62—68 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24075/vrgmu.2022.014
7. Sabelnikov VV, Sabelnikova TM, Goryacheva VN. Method for ultrasonic treatment of infected wounds and the device for its implementation. Science Intensive Technologies. 2022;4(23):14—22 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18127/j19998465-202204-02
8. Shabunin AV, Parfenov IP, Podkosov OD, Eremin DA, Drozdov PA, Nesterenko IV, Makeev DA. VAC-terapiya v lechenii inficirovannyh ran posle transplantacii pochki. Bulletin of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2019;S:95 (in Russ.).
9. Al-Kanani E, Yarosh AL, Soloshenko AV, Oleinik NV, Karpachev AA, Leshchenko AS, Sergeev OS, Gortseva PA, Benavides Gonzales R. Silver-modified montmorillonite in the treatment of patients with an infected wound. International Research Journal. 2023;8(134):1—12. https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2023.134.3
10. Mehl AA, Schneider BJr, Schneider FK, Carvalho BHK. Measurement of wound area for early analysis of the scar predictive factor. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2020;28:e3299. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3708.3299
11. Mayrovitz HN, Soontupe LB. Wound areas by computerized planimetry of digital images: accuracy and reliability. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009 May;22(5):222—229. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000350839
12. Jorgensen LB, Sorensen JA, Jemec GB, Yderstraede KB. Methods to assess area and volume of wounds — a systematic review. Int Wound J. 2016 Aug;13(4):540—553. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12472
Review
For citations:
Dunaevskaya S.S., Kosik A.A. Comparative analysis of the healing dynamics in gunshot versus domestic purulent-infected wounds. Surgical practice (Russia). 2024;(3):15-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5922/2223-2427-2024-9-3-2
Views:
228
JATS XML
Email this article 
