论文部分内容阅读
目的比较两种不同材质鼻胃管的压疮发生率。方法选择2014年9月—2015年9月入住重症监护室符合纳入、排除标准的180例患者,根据其住院号尾数奇、偶分为对照组和试验组,每组各90例。对照组使用普通硅胶鼻胃管,试验组使用“复尔凯”鼻胃管。两组患者均使用2.5 cm×7.0 cm人字形3M易撕敷料胶带进行固定,面部采用3M透明敷料进行加强固定。观察两组患者鼻部压疮发生时间及发生率。结果两组患者在带管10 d内均无鼻部压疮发生。带管10~20 d,对照组7例患者发生压疮,压疮发生率为7.8%;试验组无患者发生压疮,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 “复尔凯”鼻胃管外径小,材质柔软,对于患者鼻部的刺激及挤压性较小,引起鼻部压疮发生较少,有利于减少患者鼻胃管相关的压疮发生率。
Objective To compare the incidence of pressure sores in two different types of nasogastric tubes. Methods Seventy-eight patients admitted to intensive care unit who met the criteria of inclusion and exclusion from September 2014 to September 2015 were divided into control group and trial group according to the odd number of their hospitalization numbers. Each group consisted of 90 patients in each group. The control group used ordinary silicone nasogastric tube, the experimental group used “Fuer Kai ” nasogastric tube. Both groups of patients were fixed using 2.5 cm × 7.0 cm herringbone 3M easy-to-wear dressing tape and the face was strengthened with 3M transparent dressing. The time and incidence of nasal pressure ulcers in both groups were observed. Results There was no nasal pressure ulcer in both groups within 10 days of tube placement. In the control group, pressure ulcer occurred in 7 patients and the incidence of pressure sore was 7.8%. There was no pressure ulcer in the test group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions “Fuer Kai ” nasogastric tube small diameter, soft material, the patient’s nasal stimulation and squeeze less, causing nasal pressure ulcers less likely to help reduce the pressure of patients with nasogastric tube The incidence of sores.