真空试管负压引流与开放引流对感染切口的治疗效果比较

Efficacy Comparison of Vacuum-Assisted Tube Drainage and Open Drainage in Treatment of Infected Surgical Wound

目的对比真空试管负压引流和开放引流对感染切口的治疗效果。方法收集2007年10月—2008年2月切口感染患者37例(真空组),术后采用真空试管负压引流治疗;同时随机抽取切口感染患者42例(开放组),采用开放引流治疗。对比两种引流方式的治疗效果。结果37例因切口感染行真空负压引流治疗者的换药次数平均为(2.5±0.5)次,切口愈合时间为(7.5±1.4)d,32例切口甲级愈合;42例因切口感染行开放引流治疗者的换药次数为(16.8±1.5)次,切口愈合时间为(18.0±2.5)d,10例切口甲级愈合。两组患者换药次数、切口愈合时间和甲级愈合率间差别均有统计学意义(t=-14.32,t=-8.07,χ2=31.03,P<0.01)。两组患者引流时间和引流量间差别均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论真空试管负压引流换药次数明显减少,愈合时间加快,较开放引流患者的住院时间缩短,减少了患者的痛苦。

Objective To compare the effect of vacuum - assisted tube drainage （ VATD ） with that of open wound drainage in treatment of infected surgical wound. Methods From October 2007 to February 2008, 79 patients With a surgical wound infection were enrolled, of which 37 （vacuum group） were treated by the vacuum -assisted tube drainage and the other 42 （open group） by the open wound drainage. The treatment results of the two therapies were compared. Results Among the 37 patients in the vacuum group the average times of dressing change was （ 2.5 ± 0. 5 ） , the average wound healing time was （7.5 ± 1.4） days, and 32 patients got grade A healing of wound. While among 42 patients in the open group the average times of dressing change was （ 16. 8 ± 1.5 ） , the average wound healing time was （ 18.0 ± 2. 5 ） days, and 10 patients got grade A healing of wound. The differences in dressing change time, wound healing time and grade A healing rate between the two groups showed statistical significance （ t = - 14. 32, t = - 8.07, Х^2 = 31.03, P 〈 0.01 ）. And there were significant differences in draining time and quantity between the two groups （ P 〈 0. 01 ）. Conclusion VATD can shorten infected surgical wound healing time and hospital stay, reduce the cost of treatment and alleviate patient＇s discomfort, thus was proved to be a better alternative to open drainage of the infected surgical wounds.