Background： Poor healing wounds or postoperative infection after open-heart surgery are most commonly seen, especially in secondary surgery for heart diseases, with an incidence rate of 2.2% after a valve replacement...Background： Poor healing wounds or postoperative infection after open-heart surgery are most commonly seen, especially in secondary surgery for heart diseases, with an incidence rate of 2.2% after a valve replacement surgery. If not treated in time or the infection progresses, it can lead to sternal infection, even mediastinal and pericardial infection, causing a higher mortality rate. It becomes a really troublesome and complicated case when a poor healing occurs in midsternal incision after the heart valve surgery and a higher medical cost may be needed. Methods From January 2009 to February 2013, 162 patients who underwent heart valve surgery through midsternal incision approach and had a poor healing of wound were observed for prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to a vacuum sealing drainage group （n = 81） who received vacuum sealing drainage for healing of the wound or a control group （n = 81） who received traditional treating for the infected wound. Their therapeutic effects, healing time and treatment costs, etc were compared. Results Two patients from the vacuum sealing drainage group came back to hospital for repair due to dehiscence of the incision after discharge, and no patient died. Six patients from the control group came back to hospital for repair due to dehiscence of the incision after discharge, two came back to hospital for surgery due to chronic osteomyelitis, and one patient died two weeks later after surgery due to severe chest infection. Wound healing time for vacuum sealing drainage group was 14.6 ± 3.6 days, which was significantly shorter than that of the control group （21.2 ± 7.8 days, P 〈 0.05）, while the medical costs showed no significant difference between the two groups （P 〉 0.05）. Seventy-eight patients （96.29%） in the vacuum sealing drainage group showed a good healing of the wound and sternum after a six-month follow-up. Conclusion The use of vacuum sealing drainage technique in poor-healing wounds after heart valve surgery through midsternal incision approach could achieve good therapeutic efficacy, with shorter wound healing time and similar costs as traditional treatment.展开更多
基金supported by Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province(No. B2013019)grants from Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province (No. 20121258 & No. 20132075)
文摘Background： Poor healing wounds or postoperative infection after open-heart surgery are most commonly seen, especially in secondary surgery for heart diseases, with an incidence rate of 2.2% after a valve replacement surgery. If not treated in time or the infection progresses, it can lead to sternal infection, even mediastinal and pericardial infection, causing a higher mortality rate. It becomes a really troublesome and complicated case when a poor healing occurs in midsternal incision after the heart valve surgery and a higher medical cost may be needed. Methods From January 2009 to February 2013, 162 patients who underwent heart valve surgery through midsternal incision approach and had a poor healing of wound were observed for prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to a vacuum sealing drainage group （n = 81） who received vacuum sealing drainage for healing of the wound or a control group （n = 81） who received traditional treating for the infected wound. Their therapeutic effects, healing time and treatment costs, etc were compared. Results Two patients from the vacuum sealing drainage group came back to hospital for repair due to dehiscence of the incision after discharge, and no patient died. Six patients from the control group came back to hospital for repair due to dehiscence of the incision after discharge, two came back to hospital for surgery due to chronic osteomyelitis, and one patient died two weeks later after surgery due to severe chest infection. Wound healing time for vacuum sealing drainage group was 14.6 ± 3.6 days, which was significantly shorter than that of the control group （21.2 ± 7.8 days, P 〈 0.05）, while the medical costs showed no significant difference between the two groups （P 〉 0.05）. Seventy-eight patients （96.29%） in the vacuum sealing drainage group showed a good healing of the wound and sternum after a six-month follow-up. Conclusion The use of vacuum sealing drainage technique in poor-healing wounds after heart valve surgery through midsternal incision approach could achieve good therapeutic efficacy, with shorter wound healing time and similar costs as traditional treatment.
