Open AccessStatistical analysis of factors affecting re‐operative times in paediatric patients with scar deformity after deep second‐degree burn injury
Author(s) -
Chen Baoguo,
Yue Xiaotong,
Zhang Ruijuan,
Song Huifeng
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international wound journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1742-481X
pISSN - 1742-4801
DOI - 10.1111/iwj.12899
Subject(s) - medicine , deformity , surgery , analysis of variance , statistical significance , logistic regression , statistical analysis , statistics , mathematics
Deep second‐degree burn injuries pose a challenge for treating scar deformity in developing paediatric patients. Some patients underwent several re‐operations during their development. There was no literature reporting which factors affect re‐operative times. In this article, we intend to analyse possible influential factors that are responsible for re‐operative times in paediatric patients with scar deformity after deep second‐degree burn injuries. From 2010 to 2016, 177 paediatric cases with a history of deep second‐degree burn injury who underwent re‐operation once, twice, and equal to or more than thrice were recruited to this study, with age ranging from 0 to 18 years. The following factors were analysed: age, gender, size of scar, method for reconstruction, location, postoperative anti‐scar treatment, preschool group, school group, combined deformity, and combined method for reconstruction. One‐way ANOVA and multi‐way ANOVA analysis were used as statistical tools to analyse the above factors and re‐operative times. There were 83 male cases and 94 female cases, with an average age of 7.47 years. Statistical significance was achieved for the size of scar ( P = 0.000), operation method ( P = 0.001), and combined deformity ( P = 0.026) under 1‐way ANOVA in different re‐operative times. The operation methods for the head and neck area ( P < 0.05) and the lower extremities ( P < 0.05) are critical factors for multi‐factor variance analysis in different re‐operative times. Multivariate logistic regression analysis also demonstrated that the size of scar was an independent risk factor for the number of operations. Combined operative method was a protective risk factor for the number of operations. There was no statistical significance obtained for other factors. Size of scar, operation method, and combined operation method are the risk factors for re‐operative times, while operation methods for the head and neck area and lower extremities are the critical factors for re‐operative times. We can use the combined method to resolve scar‐related problems in order to reduce re‐operative times.