CAJ | 학술논문

目的分析封闭式负压吸引技术与常规引流技术在治疗骨科创伤感染的临床疗效.方法60例患者随机分为两组,治疗组与对照组,两组患者治疗前全部实施传统的清创术,治疗组采用VSD技术,将创面用敷料覆,1周左右时间后将VSD敷料取出,直到患者伤口处肉芽丰满,可以进行创面植皮为止,对原有创面进行病原学检查.对照组,根据创面情况每隔1-2天进行一次更换敷料,对于创面较大患者实施引流条,并配合敏感抗生素的使用,每周进行1次病原学检查,直到伤口处肉芽丰满后进行创面植皮消灭创面或直接缝合.对两组患者总疗效和愈合时间进行比较分析.结果治疗组20例治愈(66.7%),8例显效(26.7%),总有效率93.3%,与对照组治愈13例(43.3%)、显效11例(36.7%),总有效率80%相比,治愈率差异有统计学意义.治疗组平均伤口愈合时间明显缩短,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 VSD是治疗骨科创伤及感染性创面很好治疗技术,其效果较传统的换药及引流技术有着明显的优势,值得推广.
목적분석봉폐식부압흡인기술여상규인류기술재치료골과창상감염적림상료효.방법60례환자수궤분위량조,치료조여대조조,량조환자치료전전부실시전통적청창술,치료조채용VSD기술,장창면용부료복,1주좌우시간후장VSD부료취출,직도환자상구처육아봉만,가이진행창면식피위지,대원유창면진행병원학검사.대조조,근거창면정황매격1-2천진행일차경환부료,대우창면교대환자실시인류조,병배합민감항생소적사용,매주진행1차병원학검사,직도상구처육아봉만후진행창면식피소멸창면혹직접봉합.대량조환자총료효화유합시간진행비교분석.결과치료조20례치유(66.7%),8례현효(26.7%),총유효솔93.3%,여대조조치유13례(43.3%)、현효11례(36.7%),총유효솔80%상비,치유솔차이유통계학의의.치료조평균상구유합시간명현축단,여대조조상비차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 VSD시치료골과창상급감염성창면흔호치료기술,기효과교전통적환약급인류기술유착명현적우세,치득추엄.
Objective: to analyze the technique of closed negative pressure sucking and conventional drainage technique in the treatment of Department of orthopedics trauma infection: a clinical observation. Methods:60 patients were randomly divided into two groups, the treatment group and the control group, two groups of patients before treatment, all of the implementation of traditional debridement, treatment group with the use of VSD technology, the wound dressings covering, about 1 weeks time to VSD dressing out, until the patient wound granulation is full, can be carried out after skin grafting., the original wound etiology inspection. According to the control group, the wound every 1-2 days for a replacement of the dressing, for larger wounds underwent drainage strip, and combined with sensitive antibiotics,1 times a week to the pathogenic examination, until the wound granulation fullness after eradication of wounds after skin grafting or by direct suture. On two groups of patients with total therapeutic effect and healing time were compared analysis. Results:20 cases in the treatment group were cured (66.7%),8 cases (26.7%), the total efficiency of 93.3%, compared with a control group of13 cases were cured (43.3%),11 cases (36.7%), the total efficiency of 80%, compared to the cure rate, the difference was statistically significant. The treatment group the average wound healing time was shortened, as compared with the control group the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: VSD is the treatment of Department of orthopedics trauma and infection wound good treatment technology, its effect is better than the traditional dressing and drainage technology has obvious advantages, is worth popularizing.