Email Alerts
RSS
Volume 39 Issue 6
Jun.  2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Article Navigation >  CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS  > 2023  >  39(6): 558-564
Lei Ying, Ouyang Huawei, Tan Jun. Effect of pulsed dye laser in combination with ultra-pulsed fractional carbon dioxide laser in treating pediatric burn scars at early stage[J]. Chin j Burns, 2020, 36(5): 357-362. Doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200224-00084
Citation: Pan XL,Zhu ZK,Shen T,et al.Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors of sepsis development and death in patients with extremely severe burns[J].Chin J Burns Wounds,2023,39(6):558-564.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220806-00336.
shu

Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors of sepsis development and death in patients with extremely severe burns

doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220806-00336
  • 1.

    Department of Burn and Wound Repair, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Key Laboratory of the Diagnosis and Treatment of Severe Trauma and Burn of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310009, China

  • 2.

    Rehabilitation Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China

Funds:

The Joint Fund Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China U21A20370

Key Research and Development Project of Zhejiang Province of China 2019C03083

More Information
  • Corresponding author: Han Chunmao, Email: zrssk@zju.edu.cn
  • Received Date: 2022-08-06
    Abstract
  •   Objective   To explore the epidemiological characteristics and risk factors of sepsis development and death in patients with extremely severe burns.   Methods   A retrospective case series study was conducted. From January 2017 to December 2021, 135 patients with extremely severe burns who met the inclusion criteria were admitted to the Department of Burn and Wound Repair of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, including 100 males and 35 females, aged 18-84 years. The incidence and diagnosis time of sepsis, the rate of positive microbial culture of blood samples (hereinafter referred to as positive blood culture), and the mortality rate of all patients, as well as the incidence of sepsis and the pathogen of infection in patients with positive blood culture were recorded (statistically analyzed with chi-square test or Fisher's exact probability test). According to the occurrence of sepsis, all patients were divided into sepsis group (58 cases) and non-sepsis group (77 cases), and the gender, age, body mass index, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, combination of inhalation injury, burn site, burn type, total burn area, and combined injury of patients were compared between the two groups. According to the outcome, all patients were divided into death group (37 cases) and survival group (98 cases), and the aforementioned data grouped according to sepsis as well as the stability of shock period and the combination of sepsis of patients were compared between the two groups. The aforementioned data between two groups were statistically analyzed with univariate analysis of independent sample t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, or Fisher's exact probability test. Factors with P<0.1 were selected for multivariate logistic regression analysis to screen independent risk factors of sepsis and death in patients with extremely severe burns.   Results   Among all patients, the incidence of sepsis was 42.96% (58/135), the diagnosis time of sepsis was 14 (7, 24) d after injury, the positive blood culture rate was 62.22% (84/135), and the mortality rate was 27.41% (37/135). The incidence of sepsis of patients with positive blood culture was 69.05% (58/84). The top 5 pathogenic bacteria in the detection rate of septic patients with positive blood culture were Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterobacter cloacae, ranking from high to low, and the proportion of Acinetobacter baumannii infected was significantly higher than that of non-septic patients with positive blood culture ( χ 2=7.49, P<0.05). Compared with those in non-sepsis group, the proportion of combination of inhalation injury, the proportion of perineal burns, and the total burn area of patients in sepsis group increased significantly (with χ 2 values of 11.08 and 17.47, respectively, Z=5.68, P<0.05), while the other indicators did not change significantly ( P>0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that combination of inhalation injury, total burn area ≥80% total body surface area (TBSA), and perineal burns were independent risk factors for patients with extremely severe burns developing sepsis (with odds ratios of 3.15, 7.24, and 3.24, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals of 1.07 to 9.29, 1.79 to 29.34, and 1.21 to 8.68, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with those in survival group, the proportion of combination of inhalation injury, the proportion of perineal burns, and the proportion of combination of sepsis (with χ 2 values of 6.55, 11.64, and 22.26, respectively, Pvalues all <0.05), total burn area ( Z=4.25, P<0.05), and proportion of instability of shock period ( P<0.05) of patients in death group all increased significantly, while the other indicators did not change significantly ( P>0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the instability of shock period and combination of sepsis were independent risk factors for death of patients with extremely severe burns (with odds ratios of 4.87 and 3.45, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals of 1.21 to 19.57 and 1.28 to 9.33, respectively, P<0.05).   Conclusions   Patients with extremely severe burns have a high incidence of sepsis and a high mortality rate. The peak period of sepsis onset is 2 weeks after injury, with Acinetobacter baumannii as the most prominent infectious pathogen. Combination of inhalation injury, total burn area ≥80% TBSA, and perineal burns are independent risk factors for extremely severe burn patients complicated with sepsis, and combination of sepsis and instability of shock period are independent risk factors for death of patients with extremely severe burns.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
    • References(35)
  • [1]
    罗高兴.烧伤后脏器并发症的发生与防治[J].中华烧伤杂志,2019,35(8):565-567.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2019.08.002.
    [2]
    TianH,WangL,XieW,et al.Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of severe burn patients: results of a retrospective multicenter study in China, 2011-2015[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2018,6:14[2022-08-06].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29850643/.DOI: 10.1186/s41038-018-0118-z.
    [3]
    EvansL,RhodesA,AlhazzaniW,et al.Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021[J].Intensive Care Med,2021,47(11):1181-1247.DOI: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y.
    [4]
    ZhangP,ZouB,LiouYC,et al.The pathogenesis and diagnosis of sepsis post burn injury[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2021,9:tkaa047[2022-08-06].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33654698/.DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkaa047.
    [5]
    ManningJ.Sepsis in the burn patient[J].Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am,2018,30(3):423-430.DOI: 10.1016/j.cnc.2018.05.010.
    [6]
    GreenhalghDG.Sepsis in the burn patient: a different problem than sepsis in the general population[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2017,5:23[2022-08-06].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28795054/.DOI: 10.1186/s41038-017-0089-5.
    [7]
    SingerM,DeutschmanCS,SeymourCW,et al.The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)[J].JAMA,2016,315(8):801-810.DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
    [8]
    DastagirK,KrezdornN,BingoelAS,et al.Application of critical care scores in severely burned patients[J].J Burn Care Res,2021,42(6):1176-1180.DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irab030.
    [9]
    YoonJ,KymD,HurJ,et al.Comparative usefulness of sepsis-3, burn sepsis, and conventional sepsis criteria in patients with major burns[J].Crit Care Med,2018,46(7):e656-e662.DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003144.
    [10]
    ISBI Practice Guidelines Committee,SubcommitteeAdvisory,SubcommitteeSteering.ISBI practice guidelines for burn care, part 2[J].Burns,2018,44(7):1617-1706.DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.09.012.
    [11]
    梁琦强,韩春茂,黄曼.烧伤脓毒症诊断:脓毒症3.0适用吗[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2020,29(12):1509-1514.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2020.12.002.
    [12]
    姚咏明,张卉,童亚林.深化对烧伤脓毒症诊断体系与治疗策略的认识[J].中华烧伤杂志,2021,37(5):404-409.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200703-00337.
    [13]
    GreenhalghDG,SaffleJR,4thHolmes JH,et al.American Burn Association consensus conference to define sepsis and infection in burns[J].J Burn Care Res,2007,28(6):776-790.DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181599bc9.
    [14]
    LadhaniHA,YowlerCJ,ClaridgeJA.Burn wound colonization, infection, and sepsis[J].Surg Infect (Larchmt),2021,22(1):44-48.DOI: 10.1089/sur.2020.346.
    [15]
    PengY,ChenJ,YuanZ,et al.Diagnostic criteria and treatment protocol for post-burn sepsis[J].Crit Care,2013,17(1):406.DOI: 10.1186/cc11912.
    [16]
    中国医师协会烧伤医师分会《烧伤感染诊治指南》编辑委员会.烧伤感染的诊断标准与治疗指南(2012版)[J].中华烧伤杂志,2012,28(6):401-403.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2012.06.001.
    [17]
    StanojcicM,VinaikR,JeschkeMG.Status and challenges of predicting and diagnosing sepsis in burn patients[J].Surg Infect (Larchmt),2018,19(2):168-175.DOI: 10.1089/sur.2017.288.
    [18]
    郑峰,王大明,刘宁,等.特重度烧伤脓毒症患者预后评价指标的分析[J].中华危重病急救医学,2017,29(4):327-331.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.04.008.
    [19]
    王亚菲,赵永健,孙健.重度烧伤患者脓毒症发生的影响因素及预后分析[J].山东医药,2019,59(34):63-65.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2019.34.017.
    [20]
    徐风瑞,乔亮,韩伟,等.大面积烧伤并发脓毒症的独立危险因素[J].中华创伤杂志,2016,32(3):237-240.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2016.03.010.
    [21]
    D'AbbondanzaJA,ShahrokhiS.Burn infection and burn sepsis[J].Surg Infect (Larchmt),2021,22(1):58-64.DOI: 10.1089/sur.2020.102.
    [22]
    钱芳,梁琦强,黄曼.使用oXiris®强化血液净化方案治疗重症烧伤患者脓毒症相关急性肾损伤:一项单中心研究[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2020,29(12):1572-1576.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2020.12.012.
    [23]
    周瑜,梁琦强,须欣,等.一起槽罐车爆炸事件中15例特重烧创伤患者的救治情况[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2020,29(12):1566-1571.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2020.12.011.
    [24]
    张寅,马珍珠,吴蓓雯,等.特重度烧伤患者血流感染风险早期预测模型的建立及其预测价值分析[J].中华烧伤杂志,2021,37(6):530-537.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210114-00021.
    [25]
    汤陈琪,李骏强,寿倍明,等.某次工业灾难中177例严重烧伤患者的血流感染分析[J].中华烧伤杂志,2018,34(6):431-432.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.06.028.
    [26]
    高莹,李宝,高红红.烧伤脓毒症患者危险因素及脂蛋白相关磷酯酶过氧化脂质预测价值分析[J].中国急救医学,2019,39(3):221-225.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1949.2019.03.005.
    [27]
    郑玉红,李华强,王付勇,等.重度烧伤后并发脓毒症的危险因素[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2020,30(23):3526-3529.DOI: 10.11816/cn.ni.2020-201489.
    [28]
    WinebergD,MooreR,KrugerD.Procalcitonin and bacterial sepsis in burn patients in South Africa[J].J Surg Res,2020,246:490-498.DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.040.
    [29]
    SteinvallI,ElmasryM,FredriksonM,et al.Standardised mortality ratio based on the sum of age and percentage total body surface area burned is an adequate quality indicator in burn care: an exploratory review[J].Burns,2016,42(1):28-40.DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2015.10.032.
    [30]
    CecconiM,EvansL,LevyM,et al.Sepsis and septic shock[J].Lancet,2018,392(10141):75-87.DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30696-2.
    [31]
    贾赤宇,张泽鑫,李姝,等.烧伤脓毒症的免疫抑制与免疫疗法:理念、挑战与希望[J/CD].中华损伤与修复杂志:电子版,2022,17(5):379-389.DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2022.05.002.
    [32]
    LiW,WangM,ZhuB,et al.Prediction of median survival time in sepsis patients by the SOFA score combined with different predictors[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2020,8:tkz006[2022-08-06].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32346543/.DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkz006.
    [33]
    黄跃生.严重烧伤脏器损害综合防治的思考[J].中华烧伤杂志,2020,36(8):647-650.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200521-00278.
    [34]
    郇京宁,黄晓琴.控制大面积烧伤患者过度液体复苏预防并发症[J].中华烧伤与创面修复杂志,2022,38(1):13-20.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210813-00281.
    [35]
    朱峰,郑兴锋,伍国胜.对成人烧伤休克与复苏的再思考[J].中华医学杂志,2020,100(18):1372-1375.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20191129-02601.
    • Relative Articles

  • Relative Articles

    [1]Huang Shengyu, Ma Qimin, Wang Yusong, Tang Wenbin, Chu Zhigang, Xin Haiming, Chang Liu, Li Xiaoliang, Guo Guanghua, Zhu Feng. A multicenter study on the impact of the early infusion rate on prognosis and the factors of influencing the infusion rate in patients with severe burns and inhalation injury[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2024, 40(11): 1024-1033. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20240409-00130
    [2]Ma Qimin, Tang Wenbin, Li Xiaojian, Chang Fei, Yin Xi, Chen Zhaohong, Wu Guohua, Xia Chengde, Li Xiaoliang, Wang Deyun, Chu Zhigang, Zhang Yi, Wang Lei, Wu Choulang, Tong Yalin, Cui Pei, Guo Guanghua, Zhu Zhihao, Huang Shengyu, Chang Liu, Liu Rui, Liu Yongji, Wang Yusong, Liu Xiaobin, Shen Tuo, Zhu Feng. Multicenter retrospect analysis of early clinical features and analysis of risk factors on prognosis of elderly patients with severe burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2024, 40(3): 249-257. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20230808-00042
    [3]Chen Huayong, Xin Guohua. Research advances on prognosis-related forecasting models for burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(9): 891-895. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20221022-00468
    [4]Tang Wenbin, Chen Bin, Ou Shali, Li Xinying, Xiao Kui, Wang Sisi, Li Xiaojian. Analysis of the risk factors of persistent inflammation-immunosuppression-catabolism syndrome in patients with extensive burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(4): 350-355. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220214-00028
    [5]Chen Nuo, Xi Maomao, Ruan Qiongfang, Chu Zhigang, Zhang Wei, Zhang Jinli, Xie Weiguo. Risk factors of early myocardial injury and the impact of early myocardial injury on prognosis of patients with extensive burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(5): 417-423. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20230308-00074
    [6]Chen Xiaorong, Jiang Danwei, Tang Yahui, Xu Chang, Zhi Shaoce, Hong Guangliang, Lu Zhongqiu, Zhao Guangju. Predictive values of serum 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine on disease progression and prognosis of patients with sepsis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(3): 207-214. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210910-00311
    [7]Yao Yongming, Zhang Hui. Rehabilitation strategy for the improvement of long-term outcomes of patients after sepsis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(3): 201-206. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20211004-00344
    [8]Xu Long, Hu Lunyang, Wang Baoli, Zhou Hua, Yu Shaoshuo, Wu Guosheng, Sun Yu, Wang Guangyi. Significance of early lymphocyte-platelets ratio on the prognosis of patients with extensive burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(1): 57-62. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200918-00417
    [9]Hu Zhengxiang, Bian Huining, Ma Dan, Luo Hongmin, Sun Chuanwei, Lai Wen. Analysis of the clinical features and prognostic influencing factors of toxic epidermal necrolysis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2021, 37(8): 738-746. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200416-00230
    [10]Zhang Wei, Zhang Junfeng, Wang Mi, Xia Chengde, Wang Lijie, Liu Baohui, Di Haiping, Xue Jidong, Lou Jihe. Occurrence of deep venous thrombosis in adult burn patients and its risk factors[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2020, 36(1): 54-57. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2020.01.010
    [11]Ren Haitao, Han Chunmao, Zhang Jingjing, Hu Hang, Zhang Rong. Epidemiological investigation of burn patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae infection and the analysis of risk factors for sepsis in them[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2019, 35(6): 456-458. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2019.06.011
    [13]Yang Xinjing, Jin Jun, Xu Hua, Zhao Daguo, Sun Xue, Liu Shenglan, Guo Qiang. Prognostic significance of serum procalcitonin in patients with extremely severe burn and sepsis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2016, 32(3): 147-151. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2016.03.004
    [14]Huang Lifeng, Yao Yongming, Dong Ning, He Lixin, Zhang Qinghong, Yu Yan, Sheng Zhiyong. Prognostic significance of plasma gelsolin in severe burn patients with sepsis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2016, 32(2): 77-81. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2016.02.005
    [15]Wang Fan, Hu Gaozhong, Chen Jing, Gong Yali, Yuan Zhiqiang, Peng Yizhi. Prognostic significance of serum procalcitonin in patients with burn sepsis[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2014, 30(3): 223-226. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2014.03.010
    [16]HUANG Li feng, YAO Yong-ming, DONG Ning, HE Li-xin, ZHANG Qing-hong, YU Yan, SHENG Zhi-yong. Plasma gelsolin level and its relationship with the prognosis of patients with severe burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2013, 29(2): 148-151. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2013.02.014
    [18]ZHOU Hua, TU Jia-jin, HUANC YI, CHEN Xing-guang, DENG Yong-jun. Changes in serum contents of interleukin-6 and interleukin-10 and their relation with occurrence ofsepsis and prognosis of severely burned patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2012, 28(2): 111-115. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2012.02.008
    [19]PENC Dai-zhi, LIU Xiao-ling, LIU Zhi-yong, SHU Wen-ting, ZHOU Xin, LIU Jing, HUANC Yue-sheng, WU Jun, FU Wei-ling. Analysis of distribution characteristics and drug resistance of 2748 strains of pathogens isolated fromburn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2012, 28(2): 87-95. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2012.02.002
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By
  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-040100200300400
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 13.1 %FULLTEXT: 13.1 %META: 82.5 %META: 82.5 %PDF: 4.4 %PDF: 4.4 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 8.7 %其他: 8.7 %其他: 0.2 %其他: 0.2 %China: 0.2 %China: 0.2 %Kennedy Town: 0.1 %Kennedy Town: 0.1 %三明: 0.4 %三明: 0.4 %三门峡: 0.1 %三门峡: 0.1 %上海: 1.5 %上海: 1.5 %东莞: 0.1 %东莞: 0.1 %丽水: 1.4 %丽水: 1.4 %乌海: 0.1 %乌海: 0.1 %佛山: 0.1 %佛山: 0.1 %信阳: 0.1 %信阳: 0.1 %六安: 0.1 %六安: 0.1 %包头: 0.3 %包头: 0.3 %北京: 1.2 %北京: 1.2 %南京: 0.8 %南京: 0.8 %南平: 0.2 %南平: 0.2 %南昌: 0.4 %南昌: 0.4 %南通: 0.2 %南通: 0.2 %南阳: 0.1 %南阳: 0.1 %厦门: 0.4 %厦门: 0.4 %台州: 0.8 %台州: 0.8 %合肥: 0.2 %合肥: 0.2 %吉林: 0.5 %吉林: 0.5 %咸宁: 0.1 %咸宁: 0.1 %咸阳: 1.0 %咸阳: 1.0 %哥伦布: 0.1 %哥伦布: 0.1 %唐山: 0.1 %唐山: 0.1 %嘉兴: 2.2 %嘉兴: 2.2 %大连: 1.5 %大连: 1.5 %天津: 0.3 %天津: 0.3 %太原: 0.4 %太原: 0.4 %威海: 0.6 %威海: 0.6 %宁德: 0.2 %宁德: 0.2 %宁波: 0.8 %宁波: 0.8 %宜宾: 0.5 %宜宾: 0.5 %宜春: 0.1 %宜春: 0.1 %宿迁: 0.6 %宿迁: 0.6 %山景城: 0.4 %山景城: 0.4 %常州: 0.1 %常州: 0.1 %常德: 0.6 %常德: 0.6 %广州: 2.5 %广州: 2.5 %廊坊: 0.1 %廊坊: 0.1 %张家口: 2.0 %张家口: 2.0 %徐州: 0.4 %徐州: 0.4 %德州: 0.1 %德州: 0.1 %德阳: 0.2 %德阳: 0.2 %成都: 0.2 %成都: 0.2 %扬州: 0.4 %扬州: 0.4 %抚州: 0.6 %抚州: 0.6 %文昌: 0.1 %文昌: 0.1 %新乡: 0.1 %新乡: 0.1 %新余: 0.1 %新余: 0.1 %无锡: 0.6 %无锡: 0.6 %日照: 0.2 %日照: 0.2 %昆明: 0.8 %昆明: 0.8 %普赖恩维尔: 0.1 %普赖恩维尔: 0.1 %朝阳: 0.6 %朝阳: 0.6 %杭州: 1.3 %杭州: 1.3 %枣庄: 0.1 %枣庄: 0.1 %柳州: 0.1 %柳州: 0.1 %格兰特县: 0.1 %格兰特县: 0.1 %梧州: 0.2 %梧州: 0.2 %榆林: 0.3 %榆林: 0.3 %武汉: 0.7 %武汉: 0.7 %汕头: 0.8 %汕头: 0.8 %池州: 0.3 %池州: 0.3 %沃思堡: 0.1 %沃思堡: 0.1 %沈阳: 0.8 %沈阳: 0.8 %河内: 0.1 %河内: 0.1 %泉州: 0.4 %泉州: 0.4 %泰州: 0.1 %泰州: 0.1 %泸州: 0.6 %泸州: 0.6 %洛阳: 0.1 %洛阳: 0.1 %济南: 0.5 %济南: 0.5 %济源: 0.1 %济源: 0.1 %海口: 0.2 %海口: 0.2 %海得拉巴: 0.2 %海得拉巴: 0.2 %海西: 0.3 %海西: 0.3 %淄博: 0.1 %淄博: 0.1 %淮北: 0.2 %淮北: 0.2 %淮南: 0.6 %淮南: 0.6 %淮安: 0.5 %淮安: 0.5 %深圳: 0.3 %深圳: 0.3 %温州: 0.4 %温州: 0.4 %渭南: 0.3 %渭南: 0.3 %湖州: 1.1 %湖州: 1.1 %湘西: 0.4 %湘西: 0.4 %漯河: 0.4 %漯河: 0.4 %漳州: 0.6 %漳州: 0.6 %潜江: 0.1 %潜江: 0.1 %澳门: 0.3 %澳门: 0.3 %烟台: 0.1 %烟台: 0.1 %珠海: 0.5 %珠海: 0.5 %盐城: 0.2 %盐城: 0.2 %盘锦: 0.4 %盘锦: 0.4 %石家庄: 0.5 %石家庄: 0.5 %福州: 0.9 %福州: 0.9 %秦皇岛: 0.4 %秦皇岛: 0.4 %绍兴: 1.2 %绍兴: 1.2 %绵阳: 0.1 %绵阳: 0.1 %自贡: 0.5 %自贡: 0.5 %舟山: 1.9 %舟山: 1.9 %芒廷维尤: 18.3 %芒廷维尤: 18.3 %芝加哥: 0.2 %芝加哥: 0.2 %苏州: 1.1 %苏州: 1.1 %荆州: 0.1 %荆州: 0.1 %荆门: 0.4 %荆门: 0.4 %莆田: 0.1 %莆田: 0.1 %莱芜: 1.1 %莱芜: 1.1 %营口: 0.4 %营口: 0.4 %葫芦岛: 0.5 %葫芦岛: 0.5 %蚌埠: 0.1 %蚌埠: 0.1 %衡水: 0.1 %衡水: 0.1 %衢州: 0.1 %衢州: 0.1 %襄阳: 0.5 %襄阳: 0.5 %西宁: 2.3 %西宁: 2.3 %西安: 0.9 %西安: 0.9 %西雅图: 0.1 %西雅图: 0.1 %贵阳: 0.4 %贵阳: 0.4 %辽阳: 0.3 %辽阳: 0.3 %连云港: 0.2 %连云港: 0.2 %邯郸: 0.2 %邯郸: 0.2 %邵阳: 0.6 %邵阳: 0.6 %郑州: 0.7 %郑州: 0.7 %郴州: 0.2 %郴州: 0.2 %重庆: 7.8 %重庆: 7.8 %金华: 1.1 %金华: 1.1 %铁岭: 1.1 %铁岭: 1.1 %锦州: 0.1 %锦州: 0.1 %长春: 0.2 %长春: 0.2 %长沙: 0.6 %长沙: 0.6 %随州: 0.6 %随州: 0.6 %雅安: 0.1 %雅安: 0.1 %青岛: 0.1 %青岛: 0.1 %鞍山: 2.8 %鞍山: 2.8 %马鞍山: 0.1 %马鞍山: 0.1 %鹰潭: 0.2 %鹰潭: 0.2 %黄冈: 0.2 %黄冈: 0.2 %黄南: 0.2 %黄南: 0.2 %黄山: 0.1 %黄山: 0.1 %黄石: 0.2 %黄石: 0.2 %其他其他ChinaKennedy Town三明三门峡上海东莞丽水乌海佛山信阳六安包头北京南京南平南昌南通南阳厦门台州合肥吉林咸宁咸阳哥伦布唐山嘉兴大连天津太原威海宁德宁波宜宾宜春宿迁山景城常州常德广州廊坊张家口徐州德州德阳成都扬州抚州文昌新乡新余无锡日照昆明普赖恩维尔朝阳杭州枣庄柳州格兰特县梧州榆林武汉汕头池州沃思堡沈阳河内泉州泰州泸州洛阳济南济源海口海得拉巴海西淄博淮北淮南淮安深圳温州渭南湖州湘西漯河漳州潜江澳门烟台珠海盐城盘锦石家庄福州秦皇岛绍兴绵阳自贡舟山芒廷维尤芝加哥苏州荆州荆门莆田莱芜营口葫芦岛蚌埠衡水衢州襄阳西宁西安西雅图贵阳辽阳连云港邯郸邵阳郑州郴州重庆金华铁岭锦州长春长沙随州雅安青岛鞍山马鞍山鹰潭黄冈黄南黄山黄石

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(1)  / Tables(5)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 1
    Article views (1175) PDF downloads(63) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    Copyright © Chinese Journal of Burns京ICP备07035254号-14

    E-mail：shaoshangzazhi@163.com

    Website：https://zhsszz.xml-journal.net/

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd    

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return