本文選題：燒傷　切入點(diǎn)：感染　出處：《中華醫(yī)院感染學(xué)雜志》2017年09期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的探討擴(kuò)創(chuàng)植皮聯(lián)合封閉負(fù)壓引流技術(shù)在大面積燒傷患者感染難愈創(chuàng)面治療的效果,為臨床治療提供依據(jù)。方法選取2011年6月-2016年6月醫(yī)院收治的大面積燒傷感染難愈創(chuàng)面患者62例,根據(jù)收治時(shí)間不同將患者分為觀察者與對(duì)照組,各31例,給予對(duì)照組擴(kuò)創(chuàng)植皮治療,觀察組給予擴(kuò)創(chuàng)植皮治療基礎(chǔ)上聯(lián)合封閉負(fù)壓引流治療,對(duì)兩組治療總有效率、植皮成活率、創(chuàng)面愈合率及并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率等進(jìn)行比較。結(jié)果觀察組與對(duì)照組治療總有效率分別為90.3%、67.7%,觀察組與對(duì)照組相比其治療總有效率明顯提高,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);觀察組與對(duì)照組術(shù)后第3天植皮成活率分別為80.6%、38.7%,兩組間比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);觀察組與對(duì)照組患者術(shù)后第6天創(chuàng)面愈合率分別為87.1%、35.5%,兩組間比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);觀察組平均住院時(shí)間為(37.9±7.5)d,對(duì)照組平均住院時(shí)間為(45.7±14.3)d,觀察組與對(duì)照組相比明顯縮短,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);與對(duì)照組比較,觀察組術(shù)后前三次換藥時(shí)的VAS疼痛評(píng)分均明顯降低,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);在并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率方面,觀察組3.2%與對(duì)照組16.1%比較明顯降低,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);在治療滿意度方面,觀察組治療總滿意度為93.5%,與對(duì)照組治療總滿意度74.2%相比明顯升高,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論對(duì)大面積燒傷感染難愈創(chuàng)面患者給予擴(kuò)創(chuàng)植皮聯(lián)合封閉負(fù)壓引流治療具有良好的治療效果,可提高植皮成功率及創(chuàng)面愈合率,并降低并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率,值得臨床進(jìn)一步推廣應(yīng)用。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effect of skin grafting combined with sealing negative pressure drainage in treating the infected and refractory wounds in large area burn patients. Methods from June 2011 to June 2016, 62 patients with severe burn infection were divided into two groups: observer and control group (31 cases each). The patients in the control group were treated with skin grafting, and the patients in the observation group were treated with combined treatment with negative pressure drainage. The total effective rate and survival rate of skin graft in the two groups were determined. Results the total effective rate of treatment in the observation group and the control group was 90.3 and 67.7respectively. The total effective rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group. The survival rate of skin grafts in the observation group and the control group on the 3rd day after operation was 80.6 and 38.7, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P 0.05), and the wound healing rate of the observation group and the control group on the 6th day after operation was 87.1% or 35.5%, respectively. The average hospitalization time in the observation group was 37.9 鹵7.5 days, and the average hospitalization time in the control group was 45.7 鹵14.3 days, which was significantly shorter than that in the control group. Compared with the control group, the VAS pain score of the observation group decreased significantly in the first three times after the operation, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05), and the incidence of complications in the observation group 3.2% was significantly lower than that in the control group (16.1%). In terms of treatment satisfaction, the total treatment satisfaction in the observation group was 93.5, which was significantly higher than that in the control group (74.2%). Conclusion there is a good therapeutic effect for patients with large area burn infection and refractory wound by skin grafting combined with negative pressure drainage, which can improve the success rate of skin grafting and wound healing rate, and reduce the incidence of complications. It is worthy of further clinical application.
【作者單位】： 杭州市江干區(qū)人民醫(yī)院燒傷科;吉林市中心醫(yī)院燒傷科;
【基金】：浙江省醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)臨床科研基金資助項(xiàng)目(2011zyc-B04)
【分類號(hào)】：R644

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 肖立新;陸金根;;低位切開(kāi)高位擴(kuò)創(chuàng)引流治療高位復(fù)雜性括約肌間肛瘺的臨床觀察[J];上海中醫(yī)藥雜志;2007年08期

2 張少軍;楊巍;應(yīng)光耀;高洪娣;熊國(guó)華;;低位掛線高位擴(kuò)創(chuàng)引流術(shù)治療高位肛瘺的臨床觀察[J];世界中西醫(yī)結(jié)合雜志;2013年03期

3 蒙彥軍;;高位復(fù)雜性括約肌間肛瘺低位切開(kāi)高位擴(kuò)創(chuàng)引流的療效觀察[J];臨床合理用藥雜志;2013年18期

4 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陸琴;擴(kuò)創(chuàng)引流術(shù)聯(lián)合硝酸甘油軟膏治療肛裂的臨床研究[D];南京中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1590853