封闭式负压吸引技术治疗骨科创伤及感染创面的临床疗效

目的观察和评价封闭式负乐吸引技术治疗骨科创伤及感染创面的临床疗效，为临床治疗提供科学依据。方法：随机选取人住我院骨科接受治疗的外伤患者，根据其临床换药方法的不同随机均分为研究组和对照组，对照组患者通过骨科常规方法进行换药，研究组患者通过封闭式负压吸引技术治疗，对比2组患者创面愈合时间、换药次数、创面2期处理时间、抗感染费用、住院时间及并发症发生情况。结果：研究组患者的创面愈合平均时间、换药次数、创面2期处理时间、抗感染费用及住院时间显著优于对照组患者（P〈0．05）；2组患者治疗期间出现的并发症有创面感染、创面疼痛及创面化脓等，研究组患者并发症总发生率显著低于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论：封闭式负压吸引技术治疗骨科创伤及感染创面，创面愈合快、住院时间短、并发症发生率低等优点。

Objective To study for orthopedic trauma and wound infection were enclosed suction treatment of observedclinical effect. Methods： Randomly selected in January 2013 to January 2015 orthopedic trauma patients admitted to ourhospital treated 70 cases, depending on the method of dressing randomized clinical study were divided into two groups, 35cases in the control group of patients by orthopedic conventional methods of dressing, 35 cases of study group patients viaclosed-suction technology treatment, healing time compared two groups of patients, number of dressing changes, wound twoprocessing time, the cost of anti-infection, hospital stay and complications were observed. Results： The study group of patientswith an average healing time, number of dressing changes, wound two processing time, costs, and anti-infective hospital staywere （17.36 ± 5.14） d, （2.41 ± 0.60） times, （4.87 ± 1.32） d, （1522.39 ± 113.50） and $ （11.35 ± 2.81） d, significantly betterthan the control group of patients （respectively （26.57 ± 6.03） d, （8.37 ± 1.22） times, （7.90 ± 2.57） d, （2358.92 ± 147.25） yuanand （17.86 ± 3.13）） （P 〈0.05）; complications during the two groups of patients had wound infection, wound pain and woundfester, the overall incidence of complications in patients with the study group was significantly lower than the control group （P〈0.05 ）. Conclusion： Closed suction treatment of orthopedic trauma and wound infection, wound healing, shorter hospital stay,low complication rate, etc., worthy of promotion.