中国医疗设备
中國醫療設備
중국의료설비
CHINA MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
2015年
2期
108-110
,共3页
王晓旭%翟洁婷%谭光华%杨俊涛%翟溶凡
王曉旭%翟潔婷%譚光華%楊俊濤%翟溶凡
왕효욱%적길정%담광화%양준도%적용범
无菌四肢套%骨科手术%远端肢体%肢体包裹
無菌四肢套%骨科手術%遠耑肢體%肢體包裹
무균사지투%골과수술%원단지체%지체포과
sterile limb cover%orthopedic surgeries%proximal limb%covering the limbs
目的：探讨自主研制的一次性手术用无菌四肢套的临床应用效果。方法选取360例行近端肢体手术患者，随机分为实验组和对照组。实验组（180例）术中使用一次性无菌四肢套包裹肢体，对照组（180例）术中使用常规方法包裹肢体。比较两组包裹肢体的平均时间、平均所需人数及术后包裹材料的污染次数。结果实验组包裹肢体的平均时间为（2.80±0.59） min，对照组为（6.60±0.72）min；实验组包裹肢体的平均所需人数为（1.00±0.00）人，对照组为（2.03±0.41）人；实验组包裹材料的污染次数为6次，对照组为36次。实验组与对照组包裹肢体的平均时间、平均所需人数及术后包裹材料的污染次数均有统计学差异（P＜0.01）。结论应用一次性无菌四肢套对普骨科手术患者的远端肢体进行包裹，方便、快捷、所需时间短、所需人数少，可保证手术区的无菌性，值得临床推广。
目的：探討自主研製的一次性手術用無菌四肢套的臨床應用效果。方法選取360例行近耑肢體手術患者，隨機分為實驗組和對照組。實驗組（180例）術中使用一次性無菌四肢套包裹肢體，對照組（180例）術中使用常規方法包裹肢體。比較兩組包裹肢體的平均時間、平均所需人數及術後包裹材料的汙染次數。結果實驗組包裹肢體的平均時間為（2.80±0.59） min，對照組為（6.60±0.72）min；實驗組包裹肢體的平均所需人數為（1.00±0.00）人，對照組為（2.03±0.41）人；實驗組包裹材料的汙染次數為6次，對照組為36次。實驗組與對照組包裹肢體的平均時間、平均所需人數及術後包裹材料的汙染次數均有統計學差異（P＜0.01）。結論應用一次性無菌四肢套對普骨科手術患者的遠耑肢體進行包裹，方便、快捷、所需時間短、所需人數少，可保證手術區的無菌性，值得臨床推廣。
목적：탐토자주연제적일차성수술용무균사지투적림상응용효과。방법선취360례행근단지체수술환자，수궤분위실험조화대조조。실험조（180례）술중사용일차성무균사지투포과지체，대조조（180례）술중사용상규방법포과지체。비교량조포과지체적평균시간、평균소수인수급술후포과재료적오염차수。결과실험조포과지체적평균시간위（2.80±0.59） min，대조조위（6.60±0.72）min；실험조포과지체적평균소수인수위（1.00±0.00）인，대조조위（2.03±0.41）인；실험조포과재료적오염차수위6차，대조조위36차。실험조여대조조포과지체적평균시간、평균소수인수급술후포과재료적오염차수균유통계학차이（P＜0.01）。결론응용일차성무균사지투대보골과수술환자적원단지체진행포과，방편、쾌첩、소수시간단、소수인수소，가보증수술구적무균성，치득림상추엄。
Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness of application of the self-developed sterile disposable surgical limb cover. Methods Three hundred and sixty patients who would undergo proximal limb surgeries were selected and randomly divided into two groups:the experimental group (180 patients) and control goup (180 patients). The sterile disposable surgical limb cover was applied to patients in experimental group during the surgeries;while, traditional covers were applied to control group. Then, comparisons were made between two groups in the aspects of the average time and the average number of people required for covering patients’ limbs as well as the number of contamination time of the postoperative cover. Results The average time of experimental group and control group were (2.80±0.59) min and (6.60±0.72) min. While, the required average number of people of experimental group was (1.00±0.00) versus control group’s (2.03±0.41). The number of contamination time of the postoperative cover applied to experimental group was 6 in contrast with control group’s 36. The results between experimental group and control group revealed statistically signiifcant differences (P<0.01). Conclusion Application of the sterile disposable surgical limb cover into orthopedic surgeries had proven its great convenience and advantages in requiring less time and people, which can ensure the sterileness of surgical areas and should be promoted in wider applications.
