趙振勇

[摘要] 目的 探討VSD負壓封閉引流技術在骨科臨床中的應用效果。方法 整群選取該院2012年2月—2014年2 月骨科收治的68例患者,并將其分為兩組。對照組采用普通的創面清理方法,實驗組采用VSD負壓封閉引流技術。對比觀察兩組患者Ⅱ期手術用時、住院時間、換藥次數、創面面積。 結果 實驗組在Ⅱ期手術用時、住院時間、換藥次數上均少于對照組,治療后患者創面面積也明顯小于對照組(P<0.05)。 結論 VSD負壓封閉引流技術應用于骨科創面治療中能有效提高治療效果,減輕患者痛苦。
[關鍵詞] VSD負壓封閉引流;骨科;創面治療;效果
[中圖分類號] R68 [文獻標識碼] A [文章編號] 1674-0742(2015)05(a)-0054-02
Observe the Significance of Vacuum Sealing Drainage(VSD) Technology Applying to Department of Orthopaedics
ZHAO Zhen-yong
Heilongjiang Land Reclamation Bureau Bureau Central Hospital Orthopedic Hongxinglong,Shuangyashan,Helongjiang Province, 155100 China
[Abstract] Objective To observe and discuss the significance of vacuum sealing drainage(VSD) technology applying to department of orthopaedics. Methods 68 cases were chosen from patients with wound surface who hospitalized in our hospitals department of orthopaedics between February.2012 and February.2014 as our subjects and they were separated into 2 groups randomly. The control group were given conventional wound cleaning method, while the experimental group were given vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) technology to clean the wound. Time of Ⅱ period operation, length of hospital stay, frequency of change dressings and the area of the wound of the 2 groups would be taken into comparison. Results The experimental group had better effect no matter on time of Ⅱ period operation, length of hospital stay, frequency of change dressings or the area of the wound than the control group (P<0.05).Conclusion Applying vacuum sealing drainage(VSD) technology to clean the wound in department of orthopaedics would raise the operation effect and lower the burden on patients.
[Key words] Vacuum Sealing Drainage(VSD); Department of Orthopaedics; Treatment for Wound; Effect
骨科臨床上傳統的創面治療方法是采用引流管沖洗引流,用紗布覆蓋換藥,這樣患者創面基本處于半開放狀態,容易導致二次感染,從而影響治療效果,增加患者痛苦[1]。負壓封閉引流技術(VSD)采用聚乙烯酒精水化海藻泡沫敷料以及聚氨酯薄膜,將創面面積覆蓋、填充、封閉,對創面實施持續負壓引流,從而排出各種滲出物,促進創面愈合[2]。該研究整群選取2012年2月—2014年2 月間收治的骨科患者68例為研究對象,旨在研究探討VSD負壓封閉引流技術在骨科臨床中的應用效果,現報道如下。
1 資料與方法
1.1 一般資料
研究對象整群選取該院骨科收治的68例患者,所有患者創面均為開放性創面,將其分為兩組。對照組34例,其中男17例,女17例,年齡19~65歲,平均年齡(39.2±2.7)歲;實驗組34例,其中男19例,女15例,年齡20~66歲,平均年齡(40.2±2.3)歲,兩組患者在年齡、性別等一般資料上差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。
1.2 方法
對照組采用普通的創面清理方法和常規換藥。根據患者創面情況選擇處理方案。對……