CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨持续负压封闭引流(VSD)技术治疗感染性糖尿病足的临床效果。方法选取广东省佛山市南海区人民医院2012年8月~2013年8月收治的52例糖尿病足患者为研究对象，分为对照组与观察组。两组患者首先均接受糖尿病教育、注射胰岛素降低血糖以及糖尿病饮食等常规治疗方法。在此基础上观察组使用持续VSD进行治疗，对照组患者采用降纤酶治疗。比较两组患者的足部动脉血流速度、运动神经传导速度(MCV)、感觉神经传导速度(SCV)以及治疗效果。结果两组患者治疗后，足部动脉血流速度均较治疗前明显改善，治疗后观察组显著优于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者治疗前MCV、SCV比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，治疗后观察组MCV、SCV显著优于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组患者的治疗有效率明显高于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与降纤酶相比，应用持续VSD技术治疗糖尿病足可以更好地促进患者足部溃疡的愈合，具有较好效果，值得临床应用与推广。
목적：탐토지속부압봉폐인류(VSD)기술치료감염성당뇨병족적림상효과。방법선취광동성불산시남해구인민의원2012년8월~2013년8월수치적52례당뇨병족환자위연구대상，분위대조조여관찰조。량조환자수선균접수당뇨병교육、주사이도소강저혈당이급당뇨병음식등상규치료방법。재차기출상관찰조사용지속VSD진행치료，대조조환자채용강섬매치료。비교량조환자적족부동맥혈류속도、운동신경전도속도(MCV)、감각신경전도속도(SCV)이급치료효과。결과량조환자치료후，족부동맥혈류속도균교치료전명현개선，치료후관찰조현저우우대조조，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。량조환자치료전MCV、SCV비교，차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)，치료후관찰조MCV、SCV현저우우대조조，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。관찰조환자적치료유효솔명현고우대조조，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론여강섬매상비，응용지속VSD기술치료당뇨병족가이경호지촉진환자족부궤양적유합，구유교호효과，치득림상응용여추엄。
Objective To discuss the clinical effect of continued vacuum sealing drainage in the treatment of infective diabetic foot. Methods 52 cases of patients with diabetic foot were selected in Nanhai District People's Hospital of Foshan City from August 2012 to August 2013 as research objects. Patients were divided into the control group and ob-servation group. Two groups of patients were all given conventional treatment, including diabetes education, injection of insulin to reduce blood sugar, diabetic diet and so on. On the basis of the conventional treatment, patients in the obser-vation group were treated with continued vacuum sealing drainage, while patients in the control group were given defi-brase therapy. Foot artery blood flow velocity, MCV, SCV and therapeutic effect of the two groups were compared. Re-sults After treatment, the foot artery blood flow velocity of the two groups were all significantly improved than before treatment, which in the observation group was significantly better than the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Before treatment, MCV and SCV had no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05), but after treatment, MCV and SCV of the observation group was significantly better than those of the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The treatment effective rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, with statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with de-fibrase, application of continued vacuum sealing drainage in the treatment of infective diabetic foot can better promote the healing of foot ulcers, has a good effect, which is worthy of clinical application and promotion.