中华医院感染学杂志
中華醫院感染學雜誌
중화의원감염학잡지
Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology
2015年
7期
1610-1612
,共3页
微创切口%双管负压%腹部切口感染
微創切口%雙管負壓%腹部切口感染
미창절구%쌍관부압%복부절구감염
Minimally invasive incision%Double-barreled negative pressure%Abdominal incision infection
目的：将微创切口联合双管负压引流与传统切开引流方法治疗腹部切口感染的效果进行比较，旨在探讨和分析微创切口联合双管负压引流术的优势，为临床腹部切口感染的治疗加以指导。方法将2012年2月－2013年11月行腹部手术后切口感染患者158例随机分为对照组60例和观察组98例；对照组行传统的广泛切口引流术，观察组行微创切口联合双管负压引流术，对两组的引流量、治疗效果以及创口愈合效果进行比较，采用SPSS 19．0软件进行统计分析。结果对照组术后第1、2、3、4天引流量分别为（56．63±4．65）、（33．45±4．26）、（24．56 ± 3．25）、（10．25±1．35）m l ，观察组分别为（55．24 ± 5．74）、（27．45±4．12）、（13．48±2．36）、（4．87 ± 0．95） ml ，两组患者引流量均随时间呈逐渐减少的趋势，但观察组比对照组降低趋势更明显；两组引流量在第2、3和第4天比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论微创切口联合双管负压引流术能够使腹部切口感染更迅速的好转，并使愈合后遗留的疤痕减小；微创切口联合双管负压引流术作为腹部切口感染的治疗方法值得推广使用。
目的：將微創切口聯閤雙管負壓引流與傳統切開引流方法治療腹部切口感染的效果進行比較，旨在探討和分析微創切口聯閤雙管負壓引流術的優勢，為臨床腹部切口感染的治療加以指導。方法將2012年2月－2013年11月行腹部手術後切口感染患者158例隨機分為對照組60例和觀察組98例；對照組行傳統的廣汎切口引流術，觀察組行微創切口聯閤雙管負壓引流術，對兩組的引流量、治療效果以及創口愈閤效果進行比較，採用SPSS 19．0軟件進行統計分析。結果對照組術後第1、2、3、4天引流量分彆為（56．63±4．65）、（33．45±4．26）、（24．56 ± 3．25）、（10．25±1．35）m l ，觀察組分彆為（55．24 ± 5．74）、（27．45±4．12）、（13．48±2．36）、（4．87 ± 0．95） ml ，兩組患者引流量均隨時間呈逐漸減少的趨勢，但觀察組比對照組降低趨勢更明顯；兩組引流量在第2、3和第4天比較差異有統計學意義（P＜0．05）。結論微創切口聯閤雙管負壓引流術能夠使腹部切口感染更迅速的好轉，併使愈閤後遺留的疤痕減小；微創切口聯閤雙管負壓引流術作為腹部切口感染的治療方法值得推廣使用。
목적：장미창절구연합쌍관부압인류여전통절개인류방법치료복부절구감염적효과진행비교，지재탐토화분석미창절구연합쌍관부압인류술적우세，위림상복부절구감염적치료가이지도。방법장2012년2월－2013년11월행복부수술후절구감염환자158례수궤분위대조조60례화관찰조98례；대조조행전통적엄범절구인류술，관찰조행미창절구연합쌍관부압인류술，대량조적인류량、치료효과이급창구유합효과진행비교，채용SPSS 19．0연건진행통계분석。결과대조조술후제1、2、3、4천인류량분별위（56．63±4．65）、（33．45±4．26）、（24．56 ± 3．25）、（10．25±1．35）m l ，관찰조분별위（55．24 ± 5．74）、（27．45±4．12）、（13．48±2．36）、（4．87 ± 0．95） ml ，량조환자인류량균수시간정축점감소적추세，단관찰조비대조조강저추세경명현；량조인류량재제2、3화제4천비교차이유통계학의의（P＜0．05）。결론미창절구연합쌍관부압인류술능구사복부절구감염경신속적호전，병사유합후유류적파흔감소；미창절구연합쌍관부압인류술작위복부절구감염적치료방법치득추엄사용。
OBJECTIVE To compare the curative effect of minimally invasive incision combined with double‐barreled negative pressure drainage with traditional incision and drainage method for the treatment of abdominal incision in‐fections so as to explore and analyze the advantages of minimally invasive incision combined with double‐barreled negative pressure drainage and to guide the clinical treatment of abdominal incision infections .METHODS Totally 158 cases suffered from abdominal incision infections in the hospital from Feb .2012 to Nov .2013 were selected . They were randomly divided into control group with 60 cases and observation group with 98 cases .Patients in the control group underwent extensive traditional incision and drainage method ,while the observation group under‐went minimally invasive incision combined with double‐barreled negative pressure drainage .The drainage volume , the curative effect and wound healing effect were compared in the two groups .RESULTS The drainage volume in the control group after the 1st ,2nd ,3rd and 4th day were (56 .63 ± 4 .65) ,(33 .45 ± 4 .26) ,(24 .56 ± 3 .25) and (10 .25 ± 1 .35) ml ,respectively ,and the number in the observation group were (55 .24 ± 5 .74) ,(27 .45 ± 4 .12) , (13 .48 ± 2 .36) ,and (4 .87 ± 0 .95)ml .The drainage volumes in the two groups were all decreasing along with the time ,but the observation group was more obvious .The differences of drainage volume in the 2nd ,3rd and 4th day between the two groups were significant (P< 0 .05) .CONCLUSION Minimally invasive incision combined with double‐barreled negative pressure drainage has quick effect for the recovery of abdominal incision infections and re‐duce the size of the scar after the healing of the wound .Hence it is worthy of being widely promoted .
