CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较不同清洗方法清洗气管内套管的效果,以选择最佳方法.方法将已污染的气管内套管随机分为三组,A组(6 915例)气管内套管使用1%过氧化氢浸泡后手工清洗,B组(7 209例)气管内套管使用多酶清洗剂浸泡后手工清洗,C组(7 753例)使用气管内套管1%过氧化氢联合多酶清洗剂浸泡后手工清洗,采用人工目测的方法检测洁净度.结果三组洁净合格率分别为82.68%,88.93%,95.51%,不同种清洗方法在清洗合格率方面的差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论多酶清洗剂联合1%过氧化氢的方法优于两者单独使用.
목적 비교불동청세방법청세기관내투관적효과,이선택최가방법.방법 장이오염적기관내투관수궤분위삼조,A조(6 915례)기관내투관사용1%과양화경침포후수공청세,B조(7 209례)기관내투관사용다매청세제침포후수공청세,C조(7 753례)사용기관내투관1%과양화경연합다매청세제침포후수공청세,채용인공목측적방법검측길정도.결과 삼조길정합격솔분별위82.68%,88.93%,95.51%,불동충청세방법재청세합격솔방면적차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05).결론 다매청세제연합1%과양화경적방법우우량자단독사용.
Objective To compare the effects of three methods of cleaning endotrachesl tubes for the best option. Methods Contaminated endotracheal tubes were randomly assigned into 3 groups. The tubes in group A (n=6915) were soaked in 1% hydrogen peroxide; the tubes in group B (n =7 209) were soaked in multi-enzyme detergent; the tubes in group C ( n = 7 753 ) were soaked in the two solutions mentioned above in sequence. The cleanliness of all tubes after hand wash was assessed by visual observation. Results The eligibility rate of the three cleaning methods were 82. 68 %, 88.93% and 95.51%, respectively, with statistical significance(P ＜ 0. 05 ). Conclusions Cleaning endotracheal tubes with multi-enzyme detergent and 1% hydrogen peroxide in combination is better than using them separately.