目的:比较邮票植皮、meek植皮以及自体微粒皮移植用于大面积烧伤患者创面修复的临床效果和可行性。方法:回顾性分析我院烧伤科收治的120例大面积烧伤患者的临床资料,根据不同的手术植皮方法分为微粒皮植皮组、Meek植皮组和邮票皮组,每组40例。三组患者入院后均给予常规基础治疗,再根据选择植皮方式的不同实施微粒皮植皮、Meek植皮和邮票皮植皮。对比三组患者的植皮成活率、创面一期愈合率、愈合时间、死亡率、1%烧伤面积(1%TBSA)治疗费用(元)以及康复效果(康复优良率)。结果:邮票皮组植皮成活率明显高于Meek植皮组(P<0.05),Meek植皮组植皮成活率明显高于微粒皮植皮组(P<0.05)。Meek植皮组和邮票皮组创面愈合时间均明显短于微粒皮植皮组(P<0.05)。邮票皮组1%TBSA治疗费用明显低于Meek植皮组(P<0.05),Meek植皮组1%TBSA治疗费用明显低于微粒皮植皮组(P<0.05)。Meek植皮组和邮票皮组的创面一期愈合率均明显高于微粒皮植皮组(P<0.05);Meek植皮组和邮票皮组的死亡率均明显低于微粒皮植皮组(P<0.05);meek植皮组的瘢痕最轻,关节功能恢复最好;微粒皮植皮组瘢痕最重,关节功能恢复最差。结论:不同植皮方式用于大面积烧伤创面修复的临床效果各不相同。邮票皮成活率高、抗感染能力强,但扩张比例低,创面愈合效果差;meek皮扩张比例高、康复效果好,但抗感染能力差;微粒皮扩张比例最高,但成活率低,治疗成本高。临床上,应该根据患者的自身情况选择不同的植皮方式。 OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects and feasibility of stamp grafting, meek skin grafting and autologous skin grafting in the treatment of wounds in patients with extensive burns. Methods: The clinical data of 120 cases of extensive burn patients admitted to our department were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different methods of operation skin grafting, they were divided into skin grafting group, Meek grafting group and stamp peel group, 40 cases in each group. Three groups of patients were given routine basic treatment after admission, and then according to the choice of skin grafting different implementation of microdermabrasion, Meek skin graft and stamp skin graft. The skin graft survival rate, primary wound healing rate, healing time, mortality rate, 1% burn area (1% TBSA) treatment cost (yuan) and rehabilitation effect (good recovery rate) were compared between the three groups. Results: The survival rate of skin graft in stamps was significantly higher than that in Meek skin grafts (P <0.05). The survival rate of skin graft in Meek skin grafts was significantly higher than that in skin grafts (P <0.05). The healing time of Meek skin graft group and stamp skin group were significantly shorter than that of the skin grafting group (P <0.05). The cost of 1% TBSA in stamps skin was significantly lower than that in Meek skin grafts (P <0.05). The cost of 1% TBSA was significantly lower in Meek skin grafts than that in skin grafts (P <0.05). The primary wound healing rates of Meek skin graft group and stamp skin group were significantly higher than that of the skin graft group (P <0.05). The mortality rates of the Meek skin graft group and the stamp skin group were significantly lower than those of the skin graft group (P <0.05) ; meek skin graft group the lightest scar, the best joint function recovery; skin grafting group the most severe scar, joint function recovery the worst. Conclusion: The clinical effects of different skin grafting methods for wound healing in large area are different. The survival rate of stamps skin is high, anti-infective ability is strong, but the rate of expansion is low, the effect of wound healing is poor; meek skin has a high proportion of dilatation, good rehabilitation effect but poor anti-infective ability; high. Clinically, patients should be based on their own circumstances choose a different way of skin graft.