The article presents the results of studies devoted to the substantiation of the use of the cytological express method for assessing the wound process in patients with gunshot injuries of the extremities. In the course of the study, wound exudate was taken from the area of the most altered tissues in the projection of the wound channel, followed by preparation of preparations. The first and second group of preparations were stained according to Romanovsky-Giemsa and Alekseev‘s method in the cytological laboratory. The preparations of the third group were stained with the May-Grunwald dye in the preoperative room. Comparative assessment was carried out using the developed color quality index of the cytological preparation, based on a point scale. It was found that the quality of preparations stained with the May-Grunwald dye was lower according to a number of criteria (completeness of staining of cells and cell structures, the presence of artifacts, focusing resolution) in comparison with preparations stained by the laboratory method. Despite this fact, staining with eosin methylene blue according to May-Grunwald made it possible to establish the type of cytogram and assess the dynamics of the wound process within a short time (no more than 7-8 minutes) directly in the preoperative room. The advantages of this method are: the ability to get a conclusion in the shortest possible time, learnability, repeatability, the absence of the need to involve a specialist in laboratory diagnostics. This technique is a surgeon‘s working tool for practical targeting of the wound, taking into account an objective assessment of the wound process.

1. Abaev Ju. K. Spravochnik hirurga. Rany i ranevaja infekcija. – Rostov n/D: Feniks. – 2006. – 427 s.

2. Zajchik A. Sh., Churilov L. P. Mehanizmy razvitija boleznej i sindromov // Patofiziologija. – Sankt-Peterburg: JeLBI-SPb, 2002. – T. I. – S. 63–79. – 240 s.

3. Kuzin M. I., Kostjuchenok B. M. Ob#ektivnye kriterii ocenki techenija ranevogo processa. V kn. «Rany i ranevaja infekcija». – M. 1990. 190 s.

4. Nijazov B. S., Mamakeev Zh. B., Sabitov A. A., MamanovN. K. Sovremennyj vzgljad na jetiologiju i patogenez ranevogo processa (obzor literatury) / B. S. Nijazov [i dr] // Bjulleten‘ nauki i praktiki. 2020. T. 6. No 12. S. 176–190. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/61/17.

5. Perova M. D., Gajvoronskaja T. V., Karpjuk V. B., Sevost‘janov I. A. Shipieva U. A. Ispol‘zovanie prognoznyh citologicheskih harakteristik dlja vybora metodiki regenerativnogo lechenija bol‘nyh parodontitom /M. D. Perova [i dr] // Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2018; 25(5): 65-70. doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2018-25-5-65-70.

6. Supil‘nikov A. A., Devjatkin A. A., Pavlova O. N., Gulenko O. N. Morfologicheskie i fiziologicheskie aspekty techenija ranevogo processa (literaturnyj obzor) / A. A. Supel‘nikov [i dr] // Vestnik medicinskogo instituta «REAVIZ»: reabilitacija, vrach i zdorov‘e. 2016. № 3 (23). S. 144–151.

7. Truhan A. P., Zhidkov S. A., Letkovskaja T. A. Kompleksnaja ocenka jeffektivnosti paravul‘narnogo vvedenija antigipoksantov pri ognestrel‘nyh reanenijah myshc. / A. P. Truhan [i dr.] // Voenno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2017; 338(1). S. 34–38.

8. Heerschap C, Nicholas A, Whitehead M. Wound management: Investigating the interprofessional decisionmaking process. Int Wound J. 2019 Feb;16(1):233-242. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13017.