摘要
目的比较纱布和泡沫两种敷料填充伤口实施负压封闭辅助闭合治疗对伤口愈合的作用,以优选填充敷料。方法将70例入选者随机分为泡沫敷料组(34例)和纱布敷料组(36例),分别采用泡沫敷料、纱布填充伤口,均采用智能化吸引装置行负压伤口治疗。于负压治疗0d、7d、14d、21d测量两组伤口缩小率和PUSH计分,观察肉芽组织100%覆盖伤口床的时间。结果治疗不同时间两组PUSH计分比较,干预主效应F=0.057,P=0.811;时间主效应F=44.189,P=0.000;交互效应F=1.490,P=0.226。伤口缩小率比较,干预主效应F=0.970,P=0.328;时间主效应F=260.287,P=0.000;交互效应F=2.216,P=0.113。两组肉芽100%覆盖伤口床时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论纱布和泡沫敷料实施负压伤口治疗对促进肉芽组织生长和伤口缩小的作用相近,均可以作为负压封闭治疗伤口的有效填充敷料。
Objective To compare the effects of negative pressure wound therapy （NPWT） using gauze and foam on wound healing, and to identify an optimal wound filler during NPWT. Methods Totally, 70 cases receiving NPWT by using a smart negative pres- sure wound care system, were randomized into a foam group of 34, whose wounds were filled with foam dressings, and a gauze group of 36, whose wounds were filled with gauze dressings. The wound contraction rate and pressure ulcer score for healing （PUSH） were measured right before NPWT, and on the ？ d,14 d, and 21 d of NPWT. The time to achieve 100% wound granula- tion was noted. Results The PUSH scores between the two groups presented significant main effect of time （F=44. 189,P= 0. 000）, and non-significant main effect of group （F=0. 057,P=0. 811）, or interaction of time by group （F=1. 490,P=0. 226）. The wound contraction rate between two groups on different days also presented significant main effect of time （F= 260. 287 ,P= 0. 000）, and non-significant main effect of group （F=0. 970,P=0. 328）, or interaction of time by group （F=2. 216,P=0. 113）. The time to achieve 100% wound granulation between the two groups had no significant difference （P〉0.05）. Conclusion The use of gauze or foam dressings as a wound filler during NPWT exerts almost the same effect on granulation growth and wound contrac- tion, and both of them could serve as effective wound fillers.
基金
南京军区南京总医院面上课题(M2008001)
关键词
负压伤口治疗
负压封闭辅助闭合
慢性伤口
伤口愈合
敷料
negative-pressure wound therapy
vacuum-assisted closure
chronic wound
wound healing
dressings
