MEBO联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面疗效观察

Clinical Observation of MEBT/MEBO Combined with Vacuum Sealing Drainage in the Treatment of Infected Wound

目的观察MEBO联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面的临床疗效。方法将2015年1月—2017年3月河南科技大学附属三门峡市中心医院收治的68例感染性创伤患者随机分为治疗组(36例)与对照组(32例),其中对照组患者采用传统换药疗法治疗,治疗组患者采用MEBO联合负压封闭引流治疗,对比观察两组患者的创面愈合时间、愈合效果、感染控制情况及换药时的疼痛程度。结果治疗组患者创面愈合时间为(26.0±1.8)d,对照组患者创面愈合时间为(55.0±1.6)d,两组对比,t=69.845,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;治疗组患者创面乙级愈合者30例,丙级愈合者6例,对照组患者创面乙级愈合者14例,丙级愈合者18例,两组对比,u=3.377,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;换药过程中治疗组患者的创面疼痛评分为(1.2±0.1)分,对照组患者的创面疼痛评分为(4.0±0.6)分,两组对比,t'=26.079,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义;植皮前创面细菌培养结果显示,治疗组有5例患者存在细菌感染,对照组有13例患者存在细菌感染,两组对比,χ~2=6.222,P<0.05,差异具有统计学意义。结论 MEBO联合负压封闭引流治疗感染性创伤创面,可有效促进创面愈合,缓解创面疼痛,预防瘢痕增生,疗效显著,值得临床推广应用。

Objective To observe the clinical effect of MEBT/MEBO combined with vacuum sealing drainage in the treatment of infeeted wound. Methods 68 patients with infected wounds, admitted to Sanmenxia Central Hospital affili- ated to Henan University of Science and Technology between January 2015 and March 2017, were randonfly divided into two groups： treatment group （36 cases） , which was ｜reared with MEBO eomhined with vacuum sealing drainage and control group （32 cases） , which was treated with traditional dressing change. Wound healing time, wound healing effect, infec- tion control and pain intensity were observed and compared. Results Wound healing time was （26. 0 ± 1.8） d, for pa- tients in treatment group, and （55.0 ± 1.6） d for patients in eontrol group, the difference between the two groups was sta- tistieally significant （t = 69. 845, P 〈 0. 01 ）. In treatment group, 30 patients achieved healing by second intention and 6 patients achieved henling by third intention. In control group, the wound healing time was （55.0 ± 1.6） d, 14 patients a- chieved healing by second intention and 18 patients achieved healing by third intention. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant （ u = 3. 377, P 〈 0. 01 ）. During dressing change, pain score for treatment group was （ 1.2 ± 0. 1 ） points while for control group it was （ 4. 0 ± 0. 6 ） points. The comparison showed statistically significant difference （ t＇= 26. 079, P 〈 0. 01 ）. The results of bacteria culture before skin grafting showed 5 patients in treatment group got bacterial infection and 13 patients in control group got bacterial infection. The comparison of the two groups showed sta- tistically significant difference （X2 = 6. 222, P 〈 0. 05）. Conclusion MEBO combined with vacuum sealing drainage in the treatment of infected wound can effectively promote wound healing and relieve pain, prevent wound infection and hyperplas- tic scar formation. It is deserved to be promoted in clinical practice due to its excellent efficacy.