| 罗雪平,朱晓川,李 鹏,王 毅.MEBO联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面疗效观察[J].中国烧伤创疡杂志,2018,(1):42~47. |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 湿润烧伤膏 负压封闭引流 感染 创伤 疗效 |
| 英文关键词:MEBO VSD Infection Trauma Efficacy |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2615 |
| 全文下载次数: 4672 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 【摘要】 目的 观察MEBO 联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面的临床疗效?方法 将2015年1月—2017年3月河南科技大学附属三门峡市中心医院收治的68 例感染性创伤患者随机分为治疗组(36例) 与对照组(32例), 其中对照组患者采用传统换药疗法治疗, 治疗组患者采用MEBO 联合负压封闭引流治疗, 对比观察两组患者的创面愈合时间?愈合效果?感染控制情况及换药时的疼痛程度?结果 治疗组患者创面愈合时间为(26.0±1.8) d, 对照组患者创面愈合时间为(55.0± 1.6) d, 两组对比, t= 69.845, P< 0.01, 异具有统计学意义; 治疗组患者创面乙级愈合者30 例, 丙级愈合者6例, 对照组患者创面乙级愈合者14例, 丙级愈合者18例, 两组对比, u=3.377, P <0.01, 差异具有统计学意义; 换药过程中治疗组患者的创面疼痛评分为(1.2±0.1) 分, 对照组患者的创面疼痛评分为(4.0±0.6) 分, 两组对比, t'=26.079, P<0.01, 差异具有统计学意义; 植皮前创面细菌培养结果显示, 治疗组有5例患者存在细菌感染, 对照组有13例患者存在细菌感染, 两组对比, χ2 =6.222, P<0.05, 差异具有统计学意义?结论 MEBO 联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面, 可有效促进创面愈合, 缓解创面疼痛, 预防瘢痕增生, 疗效显著, 值得临床推广应用? |
| 英文摘要: |
| 【Abstract】 Objective To observe the clinical effect of MEBT/ MEBO combined with vacuum sealing drainage in the treatment of infected wound. Methods 68 patients with infected wounds, admitted to Sanmenxia Central Hospital affili?ated to Henan University of Science and Technology between January 2015 and March 2017, were randomly divided into two groups: treatment group (36 cases), which was treated with MEBO combined with vacuum sealing drainage and control group (32 cases), which was treated with traditional dressing change. Wound healing time, wound healing effect, infec-tion control and pain intensity were observed and compared. Results Wound healing time was (26.0±1.8) d, for pa?tients in treatment group, and (55.0 +1.6) d for patients in control group, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (t =69.845, P <0.01). In treatment group, 30 patients achieved healing by second intention and 6patients achieved henling by third intention. In control group, the wound healing time was (55.0±1.6) d, 14 patients achieved healing by second intention and 18 patients achieved healing by third intention. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (u= 3.377, P < 0.01). During dressing change, pain score for treatment group was(1.2±0.1) points while for control group it was (4.0±0.6) points. The comparison showed statistically significant difference (t'=26.079, P <0.01). The results of bacteria culture before skin grafting showed 5 patients in treatment group got bacterial infection and 13 patients in control group got bacterial infection. The comparison of the two groups showed sta?tistically significant difference (χ2 =6.222, P <0.05). Conclusion MEBO combined with vacuum sealing drainage in thetreatment of infected wound can effectively promote wound healing and relieve pain, prevent wound infection and hyperplastic scar formation. It is deserved to be promoted in clinical practice due to its excellent efficacy. |
|
|
|
|
