负压封闭引流联合湿润烧伤膏治疗糖尿病足疗效分析

Analysis of the Clinical Efficacy of Vacuum Sealing Drainage Combined with MEBO in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot

目的探讨负压封闭引流联合湿润烧伤膏治疗糖尿病足的临床疗效。方法选取2019年3月至2020年5月盘锦市人民医院收治的58例(60处创面)糖尿病足患者作为研究对象,根据治疗方法将其分为观察组30例(30处创面)与对照组28例(30处创面),观察组患者局部创面予以负压封闭引流联合湿润烧伤膏换药治疗,对照组患者局部创面予以负压封闭引流联合凡士林油纱换药治疗,对比两组患者创面肉芽组织出现时间、创面疼痛数字评价量表(NRS)评分以及临床疗效。结果观察组患者创面肉芽组织出现时间明显短于对照组(t=4.025,P<0.001);治疗14、42 d时,观察组患者NRS评分均明显低于对照组(t=5.730、7.120,P均<0.001);治疗42 d后,观察组患者临床疗效明显优于对照组(Z=-3.447,P=0.001)。结论负压封闭引流联合湿润烧伤膏治疗糖尿病足,可促进创面愈合、减轻创面疼痛,疗效显著。

Objective To discuss the clinical efficacy of vacuum sealing drainage(VSD)combined with MEBO in the treatment of diabetic foot.Methods 58 patients(60 wounds)with diabetic foot,admitted to Panjin Central Hospital from March 2019 to May 2020,were enrolled as research subjects and divided into observation group(n=30,30 wounds)and control group(n=28,30 wounds)based on different treatments they received.Wounds in observation group were trea⁃ted with VSD in combination with dressing change of MEBO,whereas wounds in control group were treated with VSD in combination with dressing change of Vaseline gauze.Time of granulation tissue growth,numerical rating scale(NRS)score and clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups.Results The time of granulation tissue growth in observation group was significantly shorter than control group(t=4.025,P<0.001).On day 14 and 42 of treatment,the NRS scores in observation group were markedly lower than control group(t=5.730 and 7.120,both P<0.001);after 42 days of treat⁃ment,the clinical efficacy in observation group was significantly better than control group(Z=-3.447,P=0.001).Conclusion VSD combined with MEBO in treating diabetic foot can shorten wound healing time and reduce wound pain,presenting very good therapeutic effects.