000			03259cam a2200349 a 4500
003			EG-GiCUC
005			20250223032650.0
008			210102s2020 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d
040			_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC
041	0		_aeng
049			_aDeposite
097			_aPh.D
099			_aCai01.11.14.Ph.D.2020.Ma.C
100	0		_aMarwan Ahmed Adel Mohamed Nour Eldin
245	1	0	_aComparative study between skin micrografting (Meek Technique) and meshed skin grafts in post-burn raw areas / _cMarwan Ahmed Adel Mohamed Noureldin ; Supervised Khaled Makeen Elrefaie ,Tarek Ahmed Said , Hamed Mohamed Kadry
246	1	5	_aدراسة مقارنة ما بين الرقع الجلدية متناهية الصغر (طريقة مييك) والرقع الجلدية الشبكية فى المناطق المكشوفة ما بعد الحرق
260			_aCairo : _bMarwan Ahmed Adel Mohamed Nour Eldin , _c2020
300			_a138 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm
502			_aThesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Genral Surgery
520			_aBackground: The management of paediatric burns is always challenging, due to limited donor site & in addition to the cosmetic appearance that will affect the child later in life, either the donor or the recipient site. To minimize donor skin size or with patients with limited donor sites, skin grafts may need to be expanded. Patients &Methods: a prospective comparative randomized study was done from January 2019 till June 2020, on 40 paediatric burn patients with deep dermal and full thickness burns. There were 28 scald injuries & 12 flame injuries, mean age was 5.89 years, the mean total body surface area was 18.23% and the mean deep dermal and full thickness burnt area that required grafting was 12.27%. They were divided into two groups, Meek and meshed groups. The skin graft take, epithelialization time, total time of the surgery, and the aesthetic outcomes in each group were evaluated. After the operations, the patients were followed up for 3 months to evaluate the postoperative outcomes. Results: The percentage of take in the Meek group (84.25%) was significantly betterthan with the meshed group (71.5%) (P = 0.006).Epithelialization time was better for the Meek group, but the P = 0.176. In addition, infection rates were lower in the Meek group (25%) than the meshed group (40%) (P = 0.311). Subjectively we evaluated the scars using the PSOAS scar assessment scale.The patient{u2019}s overall score exhibitedbetter results for the Meek group with a mean score of 3.17& for the meshed group was 4.2 (P = 0.048). The observer{u2019}s overall score as well was better for the Meek group with a mean score of 2.89&for the meshed group was 4.1 (P = 0.003). The operative time was longer with the Meek technique than the traditional mesher (P < 0.001)
530			_aIssued also as CD
653		4	_aBurn injuries
653		4	_aExpansion
653		4	_aMeshed grafts
700	0		_aHamed Mohamed Kadry , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aKhaled Makeen Elrefaie , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aTarek Ahmed Said , _eSupervisor
856			_uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905			_aNazla _eRevisor
905			_aShimaa _eCataloger
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c79416 _d79416