Clinical efficacy of human biological dressing transplantation for refractory wounds in middle-aged and elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of human biological dressing (human acellular dermal matrix) transplantation in the management of refractory wounds among middle-aged and elderly patients. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted involving 104 middle-aged and elderly patients (74 males, 30 females; aged 56-95 years) with refractory wounds treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from January 2023 to December 2024. Following debridement, wound areas ranged from 1.0 to 48.0 cm². All patients received vacuum sealing drainage for 7 days, followed by human biological dressing transplantation. Subsequent wound management was determined based on wound status and patient preference: patients with wounds ≥2 cm² who consented underwent autologous skin grafting (ASG); those who declined ASG or had wounds <2 cm² received regular dressing changes. Outcome measures included: post-human biological dressing coverage of exposed tendons/bones and occurrence of tendon infection/osteomyelitis; survival rate of ASG at postoperative day 7; healing time in patients managed with dressing changes alone; patient satisfaction; and changes in pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and anxiety scores assessed before and 1 month after human biological dressing transplantation using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Results After human biological dressing transplantation, 103 patients exhibited robust granulation tissue formation achieving complete coverage of exposed tendons/bones, with no instances of tendon/bone necrosis, infection, or osteomyelitis. Among these, 51 patients underwent successful ASG at (44.4±13.0) days post-human biological dressing (success rate 100.0%). The remaining 52 patients achieved primary wound healing through dressing changes alone within (62.6 ±13.4) days post-human biological dressing. One patient experienced human biological dressing dissolution and detachment due to gluteal wound infection, resulting in non-healing. The overall cure rate was 99.04% (103/104). Patient satisfaction was high: 95 very satisfied, 8 satisfied, and 1 dissatisfied (satisfaction rate 99.04%). Pain, sleep disturbance, and anxiety scores at 1 month post-human biological dressing were significantly reduced compared to pre-transplantation scores (all P<0.05). Conclusion Human biological dressing transplantation is an effective therapeutic strategy for managing refractory wounds in middle-aged and elderly patients, demonstrating excellent outcomes in promoting granulation tissue growth, facilitating subsequent wound closure, and improving patient-reported symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".