中国药业
中國藥業
중국약업
CHINA PHARMACEUTICALS
2015年
11期
84-85,86
,共3页
强化胰岛素%烧伤创面感染%负压式引流技术%临床疗效%治疗费用
彊化胰島素%燒傷創麵感染%負壓式引流技術%臨床療效%治療費用
강화이도소%소상창면감염%부압식인류기술%림상료효%치료비용
intensive insulin%burn wound infection%vacuum sealing drainage%clinical effect%treatment cost
目的：观察强化胰岛素联合负压引流（VSD）技术治疗烧伤感染创面的临床疗效，并探讨护理要点。方法选择2009年1月至2013年10月收治的58例烧伤创面感染患者，随机分为对照组和治疗组，各29例。经常规清创处理后，对照组患者施以常规换药方式或引流技术，治疗组患者施以负压引流技术，两组患者均给予强化胰岛素治疗。结果治疗组的总有效率为96.55%、平均住院时间为（13.3±4.7）d，对照组的总有效率为65.49%、平均住院时间为（20.1±8.3）d，两组差异具有统计学意义（ P<0.05）。治疗组平均治疗费用为（17852.45±1272.75）元，对照组费用为（18346.34±1345.72）元，治疗组低于对照组，但差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。结论负压引流技术极大地提高了患者的治愈率，缩短了治疗时间，减少了治疗费用，可临床推广。
目的：觀察彊化胰島素聯閤負壓引流（VSD）技術治療燒傷感染創麵的臨床療效，併探討護理要點。方法選擇2009年1月至2013年10月收治的58例燒傷創麵感染患者，隨機分為對照組和治療組，各29例。經常規清創處理後，對照組患者施以常規換藥方式或引流技術，治療組患者施以負壓引流技術，兩組患者均給予彊化胰島素治療。結果治療組的總有效率為96.55%、平均住院時間為（13.3±4.7）d，對照組的總有效率為65.49%、平均住院時間為（20.1±8.3）d，兩組差異具有統計學意義（ P<0.05）。治療組平均治療費用為（17852.45±1272.75）元，對照組費用為（18346.34±1345.72）元，治療組低于對照組，但差異無統計學意義（ P>0.05）。結論負壓引流技術極大地提高瞭患者的治愈率，縮短瞭治療時間，減少瞭治療費用，可臨床推廣。
목적：관찰강화이도소연합부압인류（VSD）기술치료소상감염창면적림상료효，병탐토호리요점。방법선택2009년1월지2013년10월수치적58례소상창면감염환자，수궤분위대조조화치료조，각29례。경상규청창처리후，대조조환자시이상규환약방식혹인류기술，치료조환자시이부압인류기술，량조환자균급여강화이도소치료。결과치료조적총유효솔위96.55%、평균주원시간위（13.3±4.7）d，대조조적총유효솔위65.49%、평균주원시간위（20.1±8.3）d，량조차이구유통계학의의（ P<0.05）。치료조평균치료비용위（17852.45±1272.75）원，대조조비용위（18346.34±1345.72）원，치료조저우대조조，단차이무통계학의의（ P>0.05）。결론부압인류기술겁대지제고료환자적치유솔，축단료치료시간，감소료치료비용，가림상추엄。
Objective To observe the clinical effect of intensive insulin combined with vacuum sealing drainage ( VSD ) technique in treating burn wound infection and to investigate its nursing key points. Methods 58 patients with burn wound infection treated in our hospital from January 2009 to October 2013 were selected and randomly divided into the control group and the treatment group, 29 cases in each group. After the conventional debridement, the control group adopted the routine dressings change mode or drainage tech-nique, while the treatment group used VSD. The two groups were given the intensive insulin treatment. The total effective rate, hospital-ization duration and treatment cost were compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate and the mean hospitalization duration in the treatment group were 96. 55% and ( 13. 3 ± 4. 7 ) d respectively;which in the control group were 65. 49% and ( 20. 1 ± 8. 3 ) d respectively, the differences were statistically significant ( P < 0. 05 ) . The mean treatment cost was ( 17 852. 45 ± 1 272. 75 ) Yuan in the treatment group and ( 18 346. 34 ± 1 345. 72 ) Yuan in the control group, the treatment group was lower than the control group, but the difference had no statistical significance ( P > 0. 05 ) . Conclusion The VSD technique greatly increases the patients ' cure rate, shortens the treatment time, reduces the treatment cost and deserves to be clinical promoted and applied.
