摘要
目的对比观察湿润烧伤膏治疗烧伤创面的临床疗效。方法将2015年2月-2017年5月南阳市中医院外科收治的70例烧伤患者随机分为试验组(35例)与对照组(35例),其中试验组患者烧伤创面采用湿润烧伤膏换药治疗,对照组患者烧伤创面采用磺胺嘧啶银乳膏换药治疗,对比观察两组患者的创面愈合时间、VAS评分、创面愈合效果及患者满意度。结果两组患者创面均完全愈合,其中试验组患者创面愈合时间为(16.80±2.30)d,对照组患者创面愈合时间为(23.35±1.87)d,两组对比采用t检验,t=13.072,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;治疗过程中,试验组患者VAS评分为(3.00±1.20)分,对照组患者VAS评分为(6.80±1.50)分,两组对比采用t检验,t=11.703,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;治疗20 d后,试验组患者中痊愈21例,有效12例,无效2例,有效率为94.29%,对照组患者中痊愈12例,有效9例,无效14例,有效率为60.00%,两组对比采用等级资料的秩和检验,Z=-3.699,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;满意度调查结果显示,试验组患者中非常满意者20例,满意者10例,不满意者5例,满意率为85.70%,对照组患者中非常满意者10例,满意者8例,不满意者17例,满意率为51.40%,两组对比采用等级资料的秩和检验,Z=-2.639,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义。结论湿润烧伤膏治疗烧伤,可有效缓解创面疼痛,促进创面愈合,提高患者依从性及满意度,疗效显著,值得临床推广应用。
Objective To analyze and observe the clinical effect of MEBT/MEBO in the treatment of burn wounds. Methods 70 burn patients admitted to Surgery Department, Nanyang TCM Hospital from February 2015 to May 2017 were randomly divided into experimental group （35 cases） and control group （35 cases）. The patients in experimen- tal group were treated with MEBO and patients in control group were treated with sulfadiazine silver cream. Wound healing time. VAS score, healing effect and satisfaction rate of patients in the two groups were observed and compared. Results Wounds of patients in both groups were healed completely. Wound healing time for patients in experimental group was （ 16. 80 ±2. 30） days and for patients in control group was （23.35 ± 1.87） days. t test was used for the comparison of pa- tients in the two groups and the result showed statistically significant difference （t = 13. 072, P 〈 0. 01 ）. During the course of treatment, VAS score for patients in experimental group was （ 3.00 ± 1.20） points and for patients in control group was （6. 80 ± 1.50） points, t test was used for the comparison of patients in the two groups and the results showed statistically significant difference （t = 11. 073, P 〈 0. 01 ） . After 20 days of treatment, in experimental group, 21 patients were cured,12 got effective treatment, 2 got ineffective treatment and total effective rate was 94. 29%. In control group, 12 were cured, 9 got effective treatment, 14 got ineffective treatment and total effective rate was 60. 00%. Rank sum test of ranked data was used for the comparison of patients in the two groups and the resuhs showed statistically significant difference （ Z = -3. 699, P〈0. 01 ）. Satisfaction survey results showed that, in experimental group, 20 patients were very satisfied with their treatment, 10 were satisfied, 5 were dissatisfied and the satisfaction rate was 85.70% ; in control group, 10 patients were very satisfied with the treatment, 8 were satisfied, 17 were dissatisfie
出处
《中国烧伤创疡杂志》
2018年第1期35-38,共4页
The Chinese Journal of Burns Wounds & Surface Ulcers
关键词
湿润烧伤膏
皮肤再生医疗技术
烧伤
创面
疗效
MEBO
Skin regenerative medical technology
Burn
Wounds
Clinical efficacy
