生物与合成敷料封闭负压引流促进植皮创面愈合的对比

Vacuum-sealing drainages based on biological versus synthetic dressings in wound healing of skin grafting

背景:骨科创面植皮时采用封闭负压引流可以封闭创面,减少渗出,促进软组织肉芽增生及植皮修复缺损。目的:对比两种不同材料的创面敷料封闭负压引流在创面植皮中的临床效果。方法:选择2010年9月至2012年3月收治的80例因创伤需植皮患者,在植皮后按自愿原则进入生物材料(基于丝瓜的植物纤维为敷料主体)及合成材料(聚乙烯乙醇化海藻盐泡沫)创面敷料封闭负压引流治疗。治疗1周后拆除封闭负压引流装置及创面敷料,记录两组的植皮覆盖率及创面愈合时间。结果与结论:两组患者均有效达到创面植皮覆盖效果,无感染及不愈合情况出现。采用生物材料创面敷料治疗组植皮覆盖率及创面愈合时间均明显优于采用合成材料创面敷料治疗组(P<0.05)。提示采用生物材料创面敷料封闭负压引流可以有效促进引流,改善循环,抑制细菌增生及促进修复过程。

BACKGROUND：Vacuum-sealing drainage in wound skin grafting can close wound, reduce the leakage, promote granulation hyperplasia and improve skin new speed. OBJECTIVE：To compare the clinical effects of two kinds of wound surface dressings used in wound skin grafting. METHODS： Eighty patients who needed skin grafting for trauma were retrospectively studied and chosen from September 2010 to March 2012. They were divided into two groups： biomaterial group （dressings mainly made of luffa fibers） and synthetics group （seaweed polyvinyl alcohol foam）. The vacuum-sealing drainage device and wound dressing were removed after 1 week treatment. The skin grafting coverage and wound healing time were recorded. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION：Al patients of two groups got effective skin grafting coverage rate, and no patient appeared with infection and nonunion. The skin grafting coverage and wound healing time of the biomaterial group significantly differed from the synthetics group （P〈 0.05）. These findings indicate that compared to the synthetic material group, the biomaterial group can be better for effective drainage, good circulation, bacteria inhibition and fast repair.