两种不同泡沫敷料透气、吸水及锁水性能比较

Comparison of air permeability,water absorption and water locking properties of two different foam dressings

目的 比较两种不同泡沫敷料透气、吸水及锁水的性能,为临床急慢性创面应用的优选提供参考依据.方法 选择德湿肤及美皮康两种敷料各5个,用氯化钠、蒸馏水及一水氯化钙制备模拟伤口渗出液,分别检测两种敷料：（1）浸没24 h后的吸水率（吸水容量多少）;（2）浸没1、5、10、20 min后四个时相点的吸水速率（单位时间内吸收水量大小）;（3）5 mL渗出液滴至敷料5 min后的扩散直径;（4）敷料密封装渗出液的杯口,置恒温恒湿箱24 h后测水蒸发量;对两组数据进行统计分析.结果 （1）吸水率：美皮康组为（616±19）%,显著高于德湿肤组的（313±13）%（t=29.137,P〈0.01）;（2）吸水速率：美皮康组浸没1、5、10、20 min后吸水速率分别为（119.68±2.59）g·s-1·m-2、（24.39±0.62）g·s-1·m-2、（12.33±0.29）g·s-1·m-2、（12.33±0.29）g·s-1·m-2,均显著高于同时相点德湿肤组的（65.85±4.37）g·s-1·m-2、（13.82±1.03）g·s-1·m-2、（7.16±0.41）g·s-1·m-2、（3.66±0.12）g·s-1·m-2（t=23.704,t=19.708,t=22.947,t=31.764,均P〈0.01）;（3）锁水性：美皮康组的直径为（5.66±0.15）cm,显著大于德湿肤组的（2.2±0.12）cm（t=39.089,P〈0.01）;（4）透气性：两组差异无统计学意义（t=0.189,P〉0.05）.结论 美皮康泡沫敷料更适合渗液量大且渗出速度较快的早期急性创面使用,德湿肤泡沫敷料更适合渗液量相对少且渗液速度慢的慢性创面和急性创面的后期创面使用.

Objective To compare the air permeability,water absorption and water locking properties of two different foam dressings,thus to provide theoretical and experimental evidence to alternative optimization for acute and chronic wound.Methods Five Mepilex foam dressings（group 1） and PermaFoam Comfort dressings（group 2） each was selected.Simulated wound exudation was made by NaCl and CaCl·H2O.The water-absorbing rate of dressings at post immersion 24 h （PIH）,the water-absorbing speed of dressings at post immersion 1,5,10,20 min,the diffusion diameter of exudation dripped on the surface of dressings for 5 min,the beaker filled with exudation was sealed tightly by dressing for 24 h,and the weight was gotten before and after 24 h.Statistical analysis was performed.Results （1） The water-absorbing rate：the group 1（616±19）% was significantly higher than （313±13）% of the group 2 （t=29.137,P〈0.01）;（2） The water-absorbing speed：the group 1 （119.68±2.59）g·s-1·m-2,（24.39±0.62）g·s-1·m-2,（12.33±0.29）g·s-1·m-2,（12.33±0.29）g·s-1·m-2 were significantly higher than those of the group 2[（65.85±4.37）g·s-1·m-2,（13.82±1.03）g·s-1·m-2,（7.16±0.41）g·s-1·m-2,（3.66±0.12）g·s-1·m-2,t=23.704,t=19.708,22.947,31.764,all P〈0.01];（3） The water holding capacity：the group 1 （5.66±0.15）cm was significantly higher than （2.2±0.12）cm of the group 2,（t=39.089,P〈0.01）;（4） The air permeability：there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups（t=0.189,P〉0.05）.Conclusion The Mepilex foam dressing is more suitable for the early stage of acute wound with large exudation in short time,while the PermaFoam Comfort dressings is better for chronic wound or the later period of acute with less exudation in a relative slow seepage velocity.