常规开放换药处置与负压密封引流技术对四肢创伤的临床疗效比较

Comparison of clinical effects by conventional open dressing change treatment and vacuum sealing drainage technique for limbs trauma

目的对比分析常规开放换药处置与负压密封引流技术(VSD技术)对四肢创伤的临床治疗效果。方法 50例四肢创伤患者,随机分为VSD技术组与常规开放换药组,每组25例。常规开放换药组采用常规开放换药处置,VSD技术组采用VSD技术治疗,记录两组患者的植皮成活率、感染发生率、住院费用和住院时间。结果常规开放换药组患者的植皮成活率为76.00%(19/25),感染发生率为24.00%(6/25);VSD技术组患者的植皮成活率为96.00%(24/25),感染发生率为4.00%(1/25);VSD技术组患者的植皮成活率明显高于常规开放换药组,感染发生率明显低于常规开放换药组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。常规开放换药组患者的住院费用为(16537.24±1253.96)元,住院时间为(43.27±5.24)d;VSD技术组患者的住院费用为(11239.72±853.15)元,住院时间为(21.23±4.35)d;VSD技术组患者的住院费用和住院时间均明显少于常规开放换药组(P<0.05)。结论与常规开放换药处置相比,VSD技术对四肢创伤具有较好的临床治疗效果,可以有效提高植皮成活率,降低感染发生率和住院费用,缩短住院时间,具有较高的临床应用价值。

Objective To comparatively analyze clinical effects by conventional open dressing change treatment and vacuum sealing drainage technique （VSD technique） for limbs trauma. Methods A total of 50 patients with limbs trauma were randomly divided into VSD technique group and conventional open dressing change group, with 25 cases in each group. The conventional open dressing change group received conventional open dressing change treatment, and the VSD technique group received VSD technique for treatment. Records were made on skin grafting success rate, incidence of infection, hospitalization cost and hospital stay time in the two groups. Results The conventional open dressing change group had skin grafting success rate as 76.00% （I9/25） and incidence of infection as 24.00% （6/25）. The VSD technique group had skin grafting success rate as 96.00% （24/25） and incidence of infection as 4.00% （1/25）. The VSD technique group had obviously higher skin grafting success rate than the conventional open dressing change group, and it had much lower incidence of infection than the conventional open dressing change group, and their differences all had statistical significance （P〈0.05）. The conventional open dressing change group had hospitalization cost as （16537.24± 1253.96） yuan and hospital stay time as （43.27 ± 5.24） d. The VSD technique group had hospitalization cost as （11239.72±853.15） ynan and hospital stay time as （21.23±4.35） d. The VSD technique group had all less hospitalization cost and hospital stay time than the conventional open dressing change group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Comparing with conventional open dressing change treatment, VSD technique shows better clinical curative effect for limbs trauma. It can effectively improve skin grafting success rate, lower incidence of infection and hospitalization cost, and shorten hospital stay time. This method contains high value for clinical application.