中华烧伤杂志
中華燒傷雜誌
중화소상잡지
16
2012年
5期
349-352
,共4页
葛体池%邢楠%陈炯%周建军%苏国良%施剑武%郑一双
葛體池%邢楠%陳炯%週建軍%囌國良%施劍武%鄭一雙
갈체지%형남%진형%주건군%소국량%시검무%정일쌍
封闭敷料%伤口渗出液%吸水率%吸水速率%锁水性能%透气性能
封閉敷料%傷口滲齣液%吸水率%吸水速率%鎖水性能%透氣性能
봉폐부료%상구삼출액%흡수솔%흡수속솔%쇄수성능%투기성능
Occlusive dressings%Wound exudation%Water-absorbing rate%Water-absorbing speed%Water-locking capacity%Air permeability
目的 比较多种泡沫敷料吸、锁水及透气性能,为临床医师针对不同类型创面选用敷料提供参考.方法 选择痊愈妥、美皮康、康惠尔3种临床常用泡沫敷料进行比较.用蒸馏水将8.3g NaCl 和 0.367 g CaCl2·H2O溶解并定容至1 L,模拟伤口渗出液(简称渗出液),分别检测:(1)敷料经渗出液浸没24 h吸水率；(2)敷料在渗出液中浸没1、5、10、20 min时吸水速率；(3)渗出液滴至敷料表面 5 min后扩散直径,以反映敷料锁水性能；(4)敷料密封渗出液24 h水蒸发量,以反映其透气性能.每种敷料毎个指标检测5个样本,对数据进行单因素方差分析和重复测量设计方差分析,两两比较采用LSD法.结果 (1)痊愈妥、美皮康、康惠尔泡沫敷料经渗出液浸没24 h的吸水率依次降低,分别为(646±18)％、(616±19)％、(499±11)％(F＝423.854,P＜0.01),敷料间两两比较,差异有统计学意义(P值均小于0.01) (2)渗出液浸没1、5、10、20 min后,痊愈妥泡沫敷料吸水速率分别为(35.20±2.31) 、(12.48±0.37)、(6.63±0.23)、(3.39±0.08)g·s-1·m-2,显著低于美皮康泡沫敷料的(119.68±2.59) 、(24.39±0.62)、(12.33±0.29)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2与康惠尔泡沫敷料的(121.09 ±3.41)、(24.73 ±0.52)、(12.37 ±0.25)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2,P值均小于0.01.随着浸没时间的延长,各种敷料的吸水速率均呈明显下降趋势,同种敷料两相邻时相点比较,差异均有统计学意义(P值均小于0.01).(3)美皮康、康惠尔、痊愈妥泡沫敷料上渗液扩散直径分别为 (5.66 ±0.15)、(4.84±0.15)、(3.94±0.21)cm(F＝124.742,P＜0.01),敷料间两两比较,差异有统汁学意义(P值均小于 0.01).(4)痊愈妥、关皮康、康惠尔泡沫敷料密封渗出液24 h的水蒸发量依次减少,分别为(31.2±3.1)、(29 7±8.7)、(5.6±2.8)g·h-1·m-2(F＝24.324,P＜0.01),康惠尔密封渗出液水蒸发量明显低于痊愈妥和美皮康(P值均小于0.01).结论 3种泡沫敷料中吸水率、锁水性能、透气性能最佳者为痊愈妥,吸水速率最佳者为美皮康和康惠尔,临床应用时需依据敷料性能特点和创面实际情况进行区分选择.
目的 比較多種泡沫敷料吸、鎖水及透氣性能,為臨床醫師針對不同類型創麵選用敷料提供參攷.方法 選擇痊愈妥、美皮康、康惠爾3種臨床常用泡沫敷料進行比較.用蒸餾水將8.3g NaCl 和 0.367 g CaCl2·H2O溶解併定容至1 L,模擬傷口滲齣液(簡稱滲齣液),分彆檢測:(1)敷料經滲齣液浸沒24 h吸水率；(2)敷料在滲齣液中浸沒1、5、10、20 min時吸水速率；(3)滲齣液滴至敷料錶麵 5 min後擴散直徑,以反映敷料鎖水性能；(4)敷料密封滲齣液24 h水蒸髮量,以反映其透氣性能.每種敷料毎箇指標檢測5箇樣本,對數據進行單因素方差分析和重複測量設計方差分析,兩兩比較採用LSD法.結果 (1)痊愈妥、美皮康、康惠爾泡沫敷料經滲齣液浸沒24 h的吸水率依次降低,分彆為(646±18)％、(616±19)％、(499±11)％(F＝423.854,P＜0.01),敷料間兩兩比較,差異有統計學意義(P值均小于0.01) (2)滲齣液浸沒1、5、10、20 min後,痊愈妥泡沫敷料吸水速率分彆為(35.20±2.31) 、(12.48±0.37)、(6.63±0.23)、(3.39±0.08)g·s-1·m-2,顯著低于美皮康泡沫敷料的(119.68±2.59) 、(24.39±0.62)、(12.33±0.29)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2與康惠爾泡沫敷料的(121.09 ±3.41)、(24.73 ±0.52)、(12.37 ±0.25)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2,P值均小于0.01.隨著浸沒時間的延長,各種敷料的吸水速率均呈明顯下降趨勢,同種敷料兩相鄰時相點比較,差異均有統計學意義(P值均小于0.01).(3)美皮康、康惠爾、痊愈妥泡沫敷料上滲液擴散直徑分彆為 (5.66 ±0.15)、(4.84±0.15)、(3.94±0.21)cm(F＝124.742,P＜0.01),敷料間兩兩比較,差異有統汁學意義(P值均小于 0.01).(4)痊愈妥、關皮康、康惠爾泡沫敷料密封滲齣液24 h的水蒸髮量依次減少,分彆為(31.2±3.1)、(29 7±8.7)、(5.6±2.8)g·h-1·m-2(F＝24.324,P＜0.01),康惠爾密封滲齣液水蒸髮量明顯低于痊愈妥和美皮康(P值均小于0.01).結論 3種泡沫敷料中吸水率、鎖水性能、透氣性能最佳者為痊愈妥,吸水速率最佳者為美皮康和康惠爾,臨床應用時需依據敷料性能特點和創麵實際情況進行區分選擇.
목적 비교다충포말부료흡、쇄수급투기성능,위림상의사침대불동류형창면선용부료제공삼고.방법 선택전유타、미피강、강혜이3충림상상용포말부료진행비교.용증류수장8.3g NaCl 화 0.367 g CaCl2·H2O용해병정용지1 L,모의상구삼출액(간칭삼출액),분별검측:(1)부료경삼출액침몰24 h흡수솔；(2)부료재삼출액중침몰1、5、10、20 min시흡수속솔；(3)삼출액적지부료표면 5 min후확산직경,이반영부료쇄수성능；(4)부료밀봉삼출액24 h수증발량,이반영기투기성능.매충부료매개지표검측5개양본,대수거진행단인소방차분석화중복측량설계방차분석,량량비교채용LSD법.결과 (1)전유타、미피강、강혜이포말부료경삼출액침몰24 h적흡수솔의차강저,분별위(646±18)％、(616±19)％、(499±11)％(F＝423.854,P＜0.01),부료간량량비교,차이유통계학의의(P치균소우0.01) (2)삼출액침몰1、5、10、20 min후,전유타포말부료흡수속솔분별위(35.20±2.31) 、(12.48±0.37)、(6.63±0.23)、(3.39±0.08)g·s-1·m-2,현저저우미피강포말부료적(119.68±2.59) 、(24.39±0.62)、(12.33±0.29)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2여강혜이포말부료적(121.09 ±3.41)、(24.73 ±0.52)、(12.37 ±0.25)、(6.18±0.13)g·s-1·m-2,P치균소우0.01.수착침몰시간적연장,각충부료적흡수속솔균정명현하강추세,동충부료량상린시상점비교,차이균유통계학의의(P치균소우0.01).(3)미피강、강혜이、전유타포말부료상삼액확산직경분별위 (5.66 ±0.15)、(4.84±0.15)、(3.94±0.21)cm(F＝124.742,P＜0.01),부료간량량비교,차이유통즙학의의(P치균소우 0.01).(4)전유타、관피강、강혜이포말부료밀봉삼출액24 h적수증발량의차감소,분별위(31.2±3.1)、(29 7±8.7)、(5.6±2.8)g·h-1·m-2(F＝24.324,P＜0.01),강혜이밀봉삼출액수증발량명현저우전유타화미피강(P치균소우0.01).결론 3충포말부료중흡수솔、쇄수성능、투기성능최가자위전유타,흡수속솔최가자위미피강화강혜이,림상응용시수의거부료성능특점화창면실제정황진행구분선택.
Objective To compare the properties of water-absorption,water-locking,and air permeability among several foam dressings,and to provide references for clinician in choosing dressings for different types of wounds.Methods The comparison was made among Allevyn foam dressing,Mepilex foam dressing,and Biatain foam dressing that were commonly used in clinic.NaCl and CaCl2 · H2O respectively in the weight of 8.3 g and 0.367 g were diluted with distilled water to the volume of 1 L to simulate wound exudation.The simulated wound exudation was used to test the water-absorbing rate of dressings at post immersion hour (PIH) 24,water-absorbing speed of dressings at post immersion minute (PIM) 1,5,10,and 20,the diffusion diameter of exudation dripped on the surface of dressings for 5 min to reflect the water-locking capacity of dressings,and the water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by dressings for 24 h to reflect the air permeability of dressings.Five samples of each dressing were used foo each index.Data were processed with one-way analysis of variance and analysis of v ariance of repeated measurement,and LSD method was applied in paired comparison.Results (1) The water-absorbing rate at PIH 24 of Allevyn foam dressing,Mepilex foam dressing,and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (646 ± 18)％,(616±19)％,and (499 ±11)％ (F ＝423.854,P ＜0.01).The differences between each two dressingsin water-absorbing rate were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01).(2) The water-absorbing speed of Allevyn foam dressing at PIM 1,5,10,and 20 were (35.20 ±2.31),(12.48 ±0.37),(6.63 ±0.23),and (3.39 ±0.08) g · s-1 · m-2,which were obviously lower than those of Mepilex foam dressing [(119.68±2.59),(24.39±0.62),(12.33 ±0.29),and (6.18 ±0.13) g· s-1 · m-2] and Biatain foam dressing [(121.09 ±3.41),(24.73 ±0.52),(12.37 ±0.25),(6.18 ±0.13) g · s-1 · m-2],with P values all below 0.01.The water-absorbing speed of each dressing showed the trend of declination among three dressings with prolongation of time.The differences between two adjacent time points within each dressing in water-absorbing speed were statistically significant (with P values below 0.01).(3) Diffusion diameters of exudation dripped on the surface of Allevyn foam dressing,Mepilex foam dressing,and Biatain foam dressing were respectively (5.66±0.15),(4.84 ±0.15),(3.94 ±0.21) cm (F ＝124.742,P ＜0.01).The differences between each two of the three dressings in diffusion diameter were statistically significant (with P values all below 0.01).(4) The water evaporation capacity of exudation after being sealed up by each dressing for 24 h decreased in succession for Allevyn foam dressing,Mepilex foam dressing,and Biatain foam dressing,which were respectively (31.2 ±3.1),(29.7 ±8.7),(5.6 ±2.8) g · h-1 · m-2 (F ＝ 24.324,P ＜ 0.01).The water evaporation capacity of exudation sealed with Biatain foam dressing was significantly lower than that of exudation sealed with Allevyn foam dressing and Mepilex foam dressing (with P values below 0.01).Conclusions Among the three kinds of foam dressings,Allevyn performs best in water-absorbing rate,water-locking capacity,and air permeability,while Mepilex and Biatain perform best in water-absorbing speed.For selecting foam dressing in clinic,the properties of foam dressingsand wound characteristics should be considered at the same time.
