论文部分内容阅读
目的分析比较负压封闭引流术和传统换药技术治疗压疮感染创面的临床疗效。方法 100例压疮感染创面患者作为研究对象,将患者随机分为实验组和对照组,每组50例。对照组患者使用传统换药技术进行治疗,实验组患者进行负压封闭引流技术治疗。观察比较两组患者换药次数、创面缩小面积、疼痛指数评分、住院时间。结果实验组换药次数为(2.0±0.8)次、创面缩小面积为(4.1±2.1)cm2、疼痛指数评分为(2.6±1.3)分、住院时间为(18.9±4.2)d,对照组换药次数为(7.0±2.5)次、创面缩小面积为(1.8±1.5)cm2、疼痛指数评分为(6.1±1.4)分、住院时间为(31.6±6.8)d,实验组患者换药次数、创面缩小面积、疼痛指数评分、住院时间均明显优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论负压封闭引流术能够对患者的创面感染有所控制,另外利用充分的引流和刺激,能够提高肉芽组织的生长速度,进而缩短患者创面的愈合时间。与此同时,进行负压封闭引流术能够免除换药的复杂情况,通过对创面的良好覆盖,能够实现对压疮的更好处理。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of vacuum sealing drainage and traditional dressing techniques in the treatment of pressure wound infection. Methods One hundred patients with pressure ulcer wounds were selected as study subjects. Patients were randomly divided into experimental group and control group with 50 cases in each group. Patients in the control group were treated with traditional dressing-changing technique, and patients in the experimental group were treated with negative pressure drainage. Observed and compared the number of dressing changes in patients in two groups, wound area reduction, pain index score, length of stay. Results The number of dressing changes in the experimental group was (2.0 ± 0.8) times, the area of wound reduction was (4.1 ± 2.1) cm2, the pain index score was (2.6 ± 1.3) and the length of stay in hospital was (18.9 ± 4.2) (7.0 ± 2.5) times, wound shrinkage area (1.8 ± 1.5) cm 2, pain index score (6.1 ± 1.4), length of hospital stay (31.6 ± 6.8) days, Area, pain index score and hospital stay were significantly better than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Closed-end drainage can control wound infection in patients. In addition, adequate drainage and stimulation can increase the growth rate of granulation tissue and shorten the wound healing time. At the same time, the negative pressure closure drainage can be dispensed with the complexities of dressing change, and the better coverage of pressure ulcers can be achieved through good coverage of the wound.