摘要
目的:探讨针对普外科术后患者的临床有效引流方式,为普外科手术的临床研究提供借鉴和参考。方法:选取2014年10月-2015年7月本院普外科手术患者136例为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,每组68例,分别给予真空负压引流术和非真空负压引流术实施引流,观察比较两组患者的拔管时间、总引流量、并发症发生率以及切口愈合情况。结果:(1)观察组患者的平均拔管时间(3.29±0.98)d、总引流量(214.34±10.98)m L均低于对照组的(5.81±1.34)d和(326.34±17.43)m L,比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(2)观察组患者的并发症发生率为8.82%,低于对照组的23.53%,比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(3)观察组切口愈合优良率为95.59%,高于对照组的69.12%,比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:临床针对普外科术后手术患者实施引流的实践过程中,与非真空负压引流术相比较,采用真空负压引流术能够有效改善患者临床指标,降低并发症发生率,改善患者的切口愈合。
Objective： To investigate the clinical effective drainage way for general surgery patients, so as to provide reference for clinical research of general surgery. Method： 136 patients in the department of general surgery of our hospital from October 2014 to July 2015 were chosen as objects and randomly divided into observation group and control group with 68 eases in each group. They were treatment with vacuum drainage and non-vacuum drainage respectively. The extubation time, total drainage, complication rate, and wound healing of the two groups were observed and compared as evaluation criteria. Result： （ 1 ） The mean time of extubation and the total drainage volume of the observation group was （ 3.29 ± 0.98 ） d and （ 214.34 ±10.98 ） mL, which was lower than that of the control group, the difference was statistical significant （ P〈0.05 ） . （ 2 ） The incidence of the observation group was 8.82%, which was lower than 23.53% of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant （ P〈0.05 ）. （ 3 ） The rate of wound healing of the observation group was 95.59%, which was higher than 69.12% of the control group, the difference was statistically significant （ P〈0.05 ） . Conclusion： In the clinical practice for patients after general surgery, the implementation of vacuum drainage, compared with non-vacuum drainage, can improve the clinical parameters of patients, reduce the incidence of complications and improve the patient＇s wound healing.
出处
《中国医学创新》
CAS
2016年第4期40-42,共3页
Medical Innovation of China
基金
梅州市科技计划项目(2014B131)
