论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较剖宫产产妇术后切口感染和裂开的保守治疗与二期缝合的临床疗效。方法:选取2013年1月—2016年12月间收治的行剖宫产产妇术后切口感染裂开患者72例作为研究对象,采用回顾性分析法根据患者自愿选择治疗方式,最终确定保守治疗组43例和二期缝合组29例;治疗结束后,比较两组患者在治疗期间疼痛VAS评分值的变化情况和不良反应的发生率,以及治疗前后按生活质量评价量表(SF-36)评分的评分值变化情况。结果:治疗中,保守治疗组患者的疼痛VAS评分值低于二期缝合组(P<0.05);治疗后不良反应的发生率稍低于二期缝合组(P>0.05);SF-36评分值优于二期缝合组(P<0.05)。结论:相较于二期缝合组患者的治疗方式,保守治疗组患者的安全性更高,治疗过程痛苦程度轻微,有效预防和避免了剖宫产产妇术后切口感染裂开的发生。
Objective: To compare the conservative treatment of incision infection and split after cesarean section and the clinical effect of second-stage suture. Methods: Seventy-two patients who underwent incisional wound infection after cesarean section were selected from January 2013 to December 2016. The patients were divided into conservative treatment group 43 cases and the second suture group, 29 cases. After the treatment, the changes of pain VAS scores and the incidence of adverse reactions in the two groups were compared, and the quality of life evaluation scale (SF-36) before and after treatment The score changes. Results: The VAS scores of patients in the conservative treatment group were lower than those in the second suture group (P <0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was slightly lower in the conservative treatment group than in the second suture group (P> 0.05) Value was better than the second suture group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the treatment of patients in the second suture group, patients in the conservative treatment group have higher safety and mild pain in the treatment process, which effectively prevent and avoid incision infection in cesarean section postoperative wound infection.