封闭负压引流早期处理软组织爆炸伤创面的实验研究

目的：观察封闭负压引流（vacuum assisted closure,VAC）早期处理对软组织爆炸伤创面的影响,为战伤早期处理提供新的思路。方法：选取健康3月龄长白猪8头,体重（50±5）kg,雌雄不拘,用同一型号的电雷管（型号：660929F48840-55,含DDNP0.3g,RDX0.7g）紧贴双侧臀部皮肤,造成16个损伤程度相当的爆炸创面,左右创面配对分成实验组和对照组。在室外暴露3h后进行创面的彻底清创,实验组用封闭负压引流处理,负压值维持在（-50±5）Kpa;对照组用无菌干纱布覆盖。分别于治疗前后进行大体观察、细菌学计数和革兰氏阳性（G＋）细菌比例分析,以及采集病理学标本进行HE染色和Masson染色。结果：治疗3d后实验组创面细菌数为[（7.82±0.55）×104]CFU/g,对照组为[（1.07±0.14）×106]CFU/g,两组间有统计学差异（P〈0.01）;实验组G＋细菌比例显著提高,对照组则没有变化;实验组创面清洁,较对照组有更丰富的新生肉芽组织、血管和胶原,坏死组织明显减少。结论：VAC能抑制创面细菌增殖,提高G＋细菌的比例,促进创面愈合,可用于软组织爆炸创面的早期治疗。     

封闭负压引流治疗地震伤后四肢复杂感染创面

目的 探讨封闭负压引流(VSD)技术治疗地震伤后四肢复杂感染创面的效果. 方法 2008年5月采用VSD技术治疗地震伤后继发感染的四肢复杂感染创面共8例(10个创面),男6例,女2例;年龄20～62岁,平均35.8岁.手术分为两个阶段进行:以应用VSD技术为主的创面预备性手术和关闭创面的终末手术.每阶段手术前对每个创面进行细菌培养. 结果 术后均随访至所有创面完全愈合后1个月,无感染复发.自使用VSD至手术关闭创面时间平均20 d(7～32 d),此期间患者平均经历3.5次(2～5次)手术.第一次清创前细菌培养阳性率为90%(9个创面),而终末手术前无一例阳性.最终4个创面直接缝合,5个采用游离植皮关闭,1个行局部转移皮瓣. 结论 VSD技术能明显促进创面肉芽生长,帮助控制创面感染,是治疗四肢复杂感染创面安全有效的方法.     

负压封闭引流技术治疗四肢创伤复杂创面的疗效观察

目的总结负压封闭引流技术治疗四肢创伤复杂创面的效果。方法将68例四肢创伤复杂创面患者按治疗方法的不同分成观察组和对照组2组。每组34例。观察组给予负压封闭引流技术治疗,对照组常规换药治疗,对比2组平均创面面积和并发症发生情况。结果观察组平均创面面积(28.12 cm2)小于对照组(48.35 cm2),观察组的并发症发生率(11.76%)低于对照组(50.00%),2组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对四肢创伤复杂创面实施负压封闭引流术可减小创面面积,促进创面愈合,且并发症少,值得临床应用。     

早期负压封闭引流治疗深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床疗效评价

目的 前瞻性评价早期VSD治疗深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床疗效,为其临床应用提供依据.方法 选择笔者单位2009年5月-2010年3月收治的双下肢烧伤后3 h内入院、总面积小于10%且各下肢深Ⅱ度面积大于1%TBSA的患者22例.依照部位对称、深度相同、面积相近等同体对照原则,将每例患者创面分为VSD治疗组(应用VSD治疗)与对照组(应用10 g/L磺胺嘧啶银霜换药).观察2组患者创面的水分蒸发量、肿胀程度、细菌定植情况、疼痛程度、愈合时间及愈合质量并进行比较分析.数据行t检验与秩和检验.结果 21例患者完成试验,均在伤后4 h内完成创面处理.VSD治疗组正常皮肤及覆盖敷料前创面的水分蒸发量与对照组相近(t值分别为1.310、-0.911,P值均大于0.05);创面覆盖敷料2 h后,敷料表面的水分蒸发量[(44.3±3.9)mL·h-1·m-2]明显少于对照组[(66.1±6.4)mL·h-1·m-2,t=-11.39,P<0.01].伤后3、7 d,VSD治疗组大腿周径较伤后5 h分别增加了(3.48±0.35)、(2.51±0.21)cm,明显小于对照组的(8.02±0.41)、(3.99±0.32)cm(t值分别为4.110、3.569,P值均小于0.01).2组创面入院时及伤后10 d细菌培养阳性率组间比较,差异均无统计学意义(Z值分别为-0.894、0.000,P值均大于0.05);2组伤后10 d细菌培养阳性率均较各组入院时显著降低(Z值分别为-3.220、-3.870,P值均小于0.01).VSD治疗组创面伤后10 d的pH值(7.12±0.06)呈现弱酸性,对照组(7.41±0.13)则为中性.VSD治疗组伤后1、3、7 d创面疼痛程度轻于对照组(t值分别为-16.132、-21.230、-16.453,P值均小于0.01).2组创面愈合时间比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.186,P>0.05).伤后2、3个月VSD治疗组创面愈合质量评价为佳(100.00%、100.00%),明显优于对照组(19.05%、85.71%,Z值分别为-11.638、-3.870,P值均小于0.01).结论 早期VSD治疗不能使深Ⅱ度烧伤创面愈合时间提前,但能显著提高其愈合质量,是处理深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的有效方法之一,值得临床关注与进一步研究.     

早期负压封闭引流治疗深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床疗效评价

Objective To evaluate the clinical curative effect of applying vaccum sealing drainage (VSD) therapy in treating deep partial-thickness burn wound at the initial stage prospectively, and to provide the basis for its clinical application. Methods Twenty-two patients with about 10% TBSA burn of the lower limbs, and in which partial-thickness wound exceeded 1% TBSA in each limb, were admitted to our hospital within 3 hours after burn from May 2009 to March 2010. Wounds in each patient were divided into VSD treatment group (treated with VSD therapy) and control group (treated with 10 g/L silver sulfadia-zine cream) based on the principles of symmetry of location, identical deepness, and similarity in size etc. The amount of water evaporation, the swelling intensity, the status of bacterial colonization, the degree of pain, the healing time, and the quality of healing of wounds in 2 groups were observed and compared. Data were processed with t test and rank-sum test. Results The observation was completed in 21 patients. All of the wounds were treated within 4 hours post burn (PBH). The amount of water evaporation of the normal skin and burn wounds before dressing coverage in VSD treatment group was respectively close to that in control group (with t value respectively 1.310, - 0. 911, P values all above 0.05) ; the amount of water evaporation on the surface of dressing in VSD treatment group [(44. 3 ±3.9) mL·h-1·m-2] was less than that in control group [(66.1 ±6.4) mL · h-1· m-2, t = -11.39, P <0.01]. In VSD treatment group, the circumference of proximal thigh increased (3.48 ±0.35) and (2.51 ±0.21) cm on post burn day (PBD) 3 , 7 as compared with that on PBH 5 , which was respectively smaller than that [(8.02 ± 0.41) , (3. 99 ± 0. 32) cm] in control group (with t value respectively 4. 110, 3. 569, P values all below 0. 01). Positive bacteria' culture rate on PBD 10 of each group was respectively lower than that at admission (with Z value respectively -3.220, -3.870, P values all below 0. 01) , and there was no significant statistical difference between 2 groups at admission or on PBD 10 (with Z value respectively - 0. 894, 0.000, P values all above 0.05). The wound surface in VSD treatment group was weak acidic (pH value 7. 12 ±0.06) on PBD 10,and it was neutral (pH value 7.41 ±0. 13) in control group. The wound pain degree in control group on PBD 1,3,7 was respectively higher than that in VSD treatment group (with t value respectively - 16. 132, -21.230, -16.453, P values all below 0.01). There was no significant statistical difference between 2 groups in healing time of wounds (t =1. 186, P >0.05). The healing quality of wounds in VSD treatment group (100. 00% , 100. 00%) 2 or 3 months after burn was better than that in control group (19. 05% , 85. 71%) (with Z value respectively -11.638, -3. 870, P values all below 0.01). Conclusions Early application of VSD therapy cannot expedite the healing process of deep partial-thickness burn wounds, but it can improve the healing quality. It is one of the effective methods to deal with deep partial-thickness burn wounds, which is worthy of clinical attention and further research.     

早期负压封闭引流治疗深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床疗效评价

Objective To evaluate the clinical curative effect of applying vaccum sealing drainage (VSD) therapy in treating deep partial-thickness burn wound at the initial stage prospectively, and to provide the basis for its clinical application. Methods Twenty-two patients with about 10% TBSA burn of the lower limbs, and in which partial-thickness wound exceeded 1% TBSA in each limb, were admitted to our hospital within 3 hours after burn from May 2009 to March 2010. Wounds in each patient were divided into VSD treatment group (treated with VSD therapy) and control group (treated with 10 g/L silver sulfadia-zine cream) based on the principles of symmetry of location, identical deepness, and similarity in size etc. The amount of water evaporation, the swelling intensity, the status of bacterial colonization, the degree of pain, the healing time, and the quality of healing of wounds in 2 groups were observed and compared. Data were processed with t test and rank-sum test. Results The observation was completed in 21 patients. All of the wounds were treated within 4 hours post burn (PBH). The amount of water evaporation of the normal skin and burn wounds before dressing coverage in VSD treatment group was respectively close to that in control group (with t value respectively 1.310, - 0. 911, P values all above 0.05) ; the amount of water evaporation on the surface of dressing in VSD treatment group [(44. 3 ±3.9) mL·h-1·m-2] was less than that in control group [(66.1 ±6.4) mL · h-1· m-2, t = -11.39, P <0.01]. In VSD treatment group, the circumference of proximal thigh increased (3.48 ±0.35) and (2.51 ±0.21) cm on post burn day (PBD) 3 , 7 as compared with that on PBH 5 , which was respectively smaller than that [(8.02 ± 0.41) , (3. 99 ± 0. 32) cm] in control group (with t value respectively 4. 110, 3. 569, P values all below 0. 01). Positive bacteria' culture rate on PBD 10 of each group was respectively lower than that at admission (with Z value respectively -3.220, -3.870, P values all below 0. 01) , and there was no significant statistical difference between 2 groups at admission or on PBD 10 (with Z value respectively - 0. 894, 0.000, P values all above 0.05). The wound surface in VSD treatment group was weak acidic (pH value 7. 12 ±0.06) on PBD 10,and it was neutral (pH value 7.41 ±0. 13) in control group. The wound pain degree in control group on PBD 1,3,7 was respectively higher than that in VSD treatment group (with t value respectively - 16. 132, -21.230, -16.453, P values all below 0.01). There was no significant statistical difference between 2 groups in healing time of wounds (t =1. 186, P >0.05). The healing quality of wounds in VSD treatment group (100. 00% , 100. 00%) 2 or 3 months after burn was better than that in control group (19. 05% , 85. 71%) (with Z value respectively -11.638, -3. 870, P values all below 0.01). Conclusions Early application of VSD therapy cannot expedite the healing process of deep partial-thickness burn wounds, but it can improve the healing quality. It is one of the effective methods to deal with deep partial-thickness burn wounds, which is worthy of clinical attention and further research.     

负压封闭引流减少创面毒素再损伤的临床观察

目的 通过与未行负压封闭引流(VSD)的创伤患者进行比较,探讨VSD减少创面愈合时毒素对机体再损伤的作用.方法 回顾性分析2005年1月至2009年6月采用VSD治疗的32例患者(VSD组)和同期未行VSD治疗的37例患者(换药组)资料.两组性别比例、年龄、损伤部位、面积、合并伤及创伤时间等一般情况比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).比较两组患者治疗前和治疗后1周的体温、血常规、肝肾功能变化、创面治疗及愈合时间等,并对结果进行多因素线性回归分析.结果 治疗前两组患者体温、血常规及肝肾功能指标的比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).治疗后5～7 d,VSD组与换药组的体温高于正常时间分别为(3.3±1.3)、(6.4±1.9)d,白细胞分别为(8.8±2.3)、(12.4±1.9)g/L,中性粒细胞分别为(6.3±2.4)、(9.2±2.7)g/L谷丙转氨酶分别为(41.1±30.0)、(58.9±34.5)U/L,谷草转氨酶分别为(38.0±24.7)U/L、(54.5±28.0)U/L,血肌酐分别为(94.8±23.7)、(118.6±23.5)μmol/L,伤口清创至植皮时间分别为(12.9±5.7)、(23.8±6.8)d,治疗时间分别为(26.5±12.5)、(36.7±13.2)d,创面愈合时间分别为(33.8±13.5)、(41.4±13.2)d,两组数据比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结合各指标多因素分析及两组数据治疗前比较结果,治疗方式的不同是引起差异的主要因素.结论 VSD能促进创面毒素排出,减少毒素的再吸收和对机体的再损伤,促进创面愈合,缩短疗程.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the effect of vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) on wound healing by reducing re-injury to the tissue attributable to wound toxins. Methods A series of 32 patients with serious limb trauma were included in the present study who received VSD treatment in our department from January 2005 to June 2009. Another series of 37 patients of the same category were used as controls who received no VSD treatment but dressing instead at the same period. Exclusion criteria were liver and kidney diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, serious organ disorders and major nerve and vascular injuries.There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in sex, age, site and size of injury, complications,time of trauma (P＞0.05). Body temperature and blood parameters (including results of hepatic and renal function tests) before and one week after the VSD treatment, wound management, and wound healing time were compared between the 2 groups, using multi-factor linear regression analysis. Results There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in body temperature and blood parameters ( P ＞ 0. 05 ) before treatment. But there were significant differences after treatment between the 2 groups in duration of high body temperature(3.3±1.3 days for the VSD group versus 6. 4 ± 1.9 days for the control group), white blood cells (8.8±2.3 g/L versus 12.4±1.9 g/L), neutrophil (6.3 ±2.4 g/L versus 9.2 ±2. 7 g/L), alanine aminotransferase (41.1±30.0 U/L versus 58.9 ±34. 5 U/L), aspartate aminotransferase (38.0±24.7 U/L versus 54.5±28.0 U/L), creatinine (94.8±23.7 μmol/L versus 118.6±23.5 μmol/L), wound debridement to skin grafting time (12.9±5.7 days versus 23.8±6.8 days), total treatment time (26.5 ± 12.5 days versus 36.7±13.2 days), wound healing time (33.8±13.5 days versus 41.4±13.2 days) ( P ＜0. 05 ＝. All the analyses showed the difference were attributable to VSD treatment. Conclusion VSD can facilitate wound healing and shorten therapeutic course by effectively removing wound toxins and thus reducing re-injury to the tissue.     

封闭负压引流技术对猪皮肤软组织爆炸伤感染创面的疗效

目的 了解封闭负压引流(VAC)技术对猪皮肤软组织爆炸伤感染创面的疗效. 方法 用电雷管在4只小白家猪双侧肩胛及双侧臀部共造成16个爆炸伤创面,将创面分为对照组和负压治疗组.2组创面伤后前2 d不作任何处理任其感染;第3天起,对照组创面用油纱换药,负压治疗组创面行VAC治疗.于治疗前(伤后第3天)及开始治疗后1、3、6、9、14、19、24 d测量并计算创面的面积、深度;取创面组织进行病理形态学观察,检测细胞增殖指数、血管内皮细胞数、髓过氧化物酶(MPO)活性和细菌计数.记录创面愈合时间. 结果 开始治疗后第1、3天,负压治疗组创面面积和创面深度不再扩大和加深,创面内炎性细胞、血管内皮细胞和增殖细胞数目均增多,MPO活性明显增高,细菌数明显减少;此期间对照组各指标变化情况与该组相反.治疗后1～19 d,2组创面的面积、深度、血管内皮细胞数以及细菌数比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);治疗后1～9 d,2组创面细胞增殖指数差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);治疗后3、6 d,2组创面MPO活性比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).对照组创面愈合时间为(32.8±1.6)d,明显长于负压治疗组的(25.8±1.0)d(P＜0.01).结论与常规换药相比,VAC能明显减少猪皮肤软组织爆炸伤感染创面的细菌数量,减轻继发性坏死,促进炎性反应,快速启动肉芽组织生成,缩短创面愈合时间.     

负压封闭引流技术介绍

负压封闭引流技术介绍佛山市中医院（５２８０００）裘华德王彦峰１９９２年德国Ｕｌｍ大学创伤外科Ｆｌｅｉｓｃｈｍａｎ博士首创负压封闭引流技术（ｖａｃｕｕｍｓｅａｌｉｎｇｄｒａｉｎａｇｅ，ＶＳＤ），用于治疗四肢软组织创面感染。１９９４年，我们在国内率先引进...     

负压封闭引流技术治疗感染创面的临床观察

目的 观察负压封闭引流技术(VSD)治疗感染创面的效果.方法 对15例创面感染患者行创面彻底清创后予VSD治疗.结果 2例经1次VSD、1例2次VSD后,直接缝合.6例1次VSD、2例2次VSD、1例3次VSD后,植皮治疗成功.3例1次VSD后创面瘢痕愈合.结论 VSD能阻止外界细菌进入创面,通畅引流,增强创面抗感染能力,促进创面愈合.     

改进型负压封闭引流技术治疗骨科复杂创面的临床效果分析

【摘要】〓目的〓探讨改进型负压封闭引流技术治疗骨科复杂创面的的临床效果。方法〓回顾性分析我院2013年1月至2015年9月四肢复杂创面患者102例,其中常规换药方法治疗33例,普通负压封闭引流术治疗35例,改进型负压封闭引流技术治疗34例,比较三组患者换药次数、愈合时间、住院费用、总住院时间以及术后感染复发率等指标。结果〓与传统治疗方法比较,普通型负压封闭引流术和改进型负压封闭引流技术换药次数、愈合时间、住院费用、总住院时间以及术后感染复发率均较低(P<0.05),改进型封闭负压引流术愈合时间和总住院时间亦较普通型短(P<0.05)。结论〓改进型负压封闭引流技术在治疗骨科复杂创面方面,具有减少换药次数、愈合时间、住院费用、总住院时间以及术后感染复发率等作用,是一种较为理想的治疗方法。     

清创结合负压封闭引流技术治疗手部高压油漆注射伤

目的：探讨负压封闭引流（VSD）技术对手部高压油漆注射伤创面的修复作用及评价疗效。方法：自2005年4月至2010年8月,采用清创结合VSD技术治疗手部高压油漆注射伤14例,年龄23～47岁,平均36.5岁,均为男性,均为左手受伤,拇指5例,食指3例,中指2例,手掌4例。患手肿胀明显,末梢血运差。所有患者在伤后6h内急诊行清创探查及VSD封闭创面,经3～4次手术,待创面肉芽组织新鲜,无明显炎性渗出后,行植皮（9例）或转移皮瓣（5例）修复创面。结果：14例患者均获得随访,时间8～16个月,平均12个月。所有创面均愈合良好。根据TAM功能评定法评价：优7例,良6例,中1例。结论：清创结合VSD技术能够有效避免伤口感染,促进肉芽组织生成,有利于创面修复。     

封闭负压引流技术(VSD)在四肢严重毁损创面修复中的应用

目的总结应用封闭负压引流技术(vacuum sealing drainage,VSD)修复四肢严重毁损创面的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2012年2月~2014年2月在我院行四肢严重毁损创面修复治疗的64例患者临床资料,均采用VSD技术治疗,观察其临床疗效。结果 64例患者治疗后无一例出现过敏反应,且损伤创面感染明显好转。经过5~7 d的封闭负压引流治疗,除10例患者由于毁伤创面受损较大,且感染严重,出现血运欠佳,需进一步清创后继续VSD治疗,其余54例患者毁伤创面的肉芽组织生长良好,未出现水肿、渗出等。47例患者行局部转移皮瓣治疗,17例患者行薄中厚皮片植皮治疗,均成活良好。结论 VSD在四肢严重毁损创面修复中具有良好的临床疗效,可缩短患者恢复时间,提高愈合率,值得临床推广。     

负压封闭引流技术在急性大面积软组织损伤中的应用

目的 探讨负压封闭引流(VSD)技术治疗急性大面积软组织损伤的作用机制和效果. 方法 2007年7月至2012年5月采用VSD技术结合植皮或皮瓣移植修复67例各种急性大面积软组织损伤患者,男41例,女26例;年龄19 ～78岁,平均33.5岁.创伤部位:肘及前臂16例,手腕部28例,腹壁腹股沟部4例,大腿10例,小腿9例.皮肤软组织缺损范围为12 cm×10 cm ～50 cm×30 cm,合并各种骨折29例,骨外露18例,肌腱外露24例,血管外露11例.一期清创+骨折固定+VSD技术治疗17例,二次扩创+ VSD技术治疗50例.VSD装置一般保留1周.对于24例伴有骨外露、肌腱、神经、血管外露的患者,行腹股沟轴型皮瓣移植16例,腹部皮肤包埋4例,带血管游离皮瓣移植2例,胸-脐联合皮瓣修复2例.结果 67例患者创面全部获愈合,住院时间为15 ～ 58 d,平均31.7d.邮票状植皮愈合31例,中厚皮片植皮愈合12例;24例伴有骨外露、肌腱、神经、血管外露患者经皮瓣移植创面均获得修复,无创面溃烂不愈合者.63例患者术后获3～12个月(平均5.7个月)随访,创面愈合,均无再次感染、窦道形成,外观满意,功能恢复良好. 结论 急性大面积软组织损伤经严格、彻底清创后使用VSD技术可以促进创面肉芽组织快速生长,减少创面污染和感染,再及时行植皮或皮瓣修复创面可以获得良好疗效.     

负压封闭引流技术在足踝部皮肤软组织缺损治疗中的应用

目的 探讨负压封闭引流(VSD)技术在治疗足踝部皮肤软组织缺损中的临床作用.方法 2003年12月至2008年5月采用VSD技术结合二期创面手术治疗15例足踝部皮肤软组织缺损患者(VSD组),男9例,女6例;年龄16～65岁,平均(38.7±14.4)岁.创面范围为5 cm×8 cm～15 cm×20 cm.选取同期15例采用传统换药的患者作为对照组.比较两组患者的等待二期手术时间、二期手术前换药次数、创面完全愈合时间、创面愈合治疗费用.结果 VSD组15例创面全部治愈,无全身和局部并发症发生;创面二期处理采用游离植皮覆盖12例,二期缝合2例,局部皮瓣移位修复1例.两组患者等待二期手术时间、二期手术前换药次数及创面完全愈合时间比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05),而创面愈合治疗费用差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 VSD技术能充分引流和刺激创面肉芽组织快速生长、缩短治愈时间,是治疗足踝部皮肤软组织缺损的一种简便、有效方法.     

两种负压创面治疗技术临床疗效比较

Objective To compare the differences of the clinical effects, side effects and treatment-related cost between two kinds of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Methods Forty-four inpa-tients with acute, subacute, and chronic wounds were divided into simplified NPWT group ( A group) and conventional NPWT group ( B group) according to the random number table. Wounds of patients in A group were treated with gauze + continuous suction with hospital central negative pressure ( -10.64 kPa) for 24 hs; wounds of patients in B group were treated with sponge + interrupted suction with a purpose-designed suction appliance ( -16.63 kPa) for 24 hs. Gross wound condition, treatment time, survival rates of skin graft and flap, changes of bacterial species on wound, treatment cost, and ratio of side effects between two groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference between A and B groups in respect of gross wound condition, treatment time [ A group (29 ± 12) d, B group (26 ± 13) d, P > 0. 05 ], changes of bacterial species, survival rates of skin graft [ A group (98 ± 4 ) % , B group ( 98 ± 4 ) % , P > 0. 05 ] and flap (A group 98% , B group 100% , P >0.05). Treatment cost of A group $ (374 ± 134) was obviously lower than that of B group $ (9825 ± 4956) ( P <0. 01 ), while more side effects were observed in A group (33.3%) than that in B group (5.0%) ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusions Both simplified NPWT and NPWT with purpose-designed appliance ean effectively improve wound healing. The simplified method may cause many side effects and has a potential risk of inciting nosocomial infection, but it can be conveniently employed with a low cost. In contrast, the cost of using purpose-designed appliance should be cut down to meet the aim of generalization.     

实用封闭式负压引流治疗难愈性创面的疗效观察

目的观察实用封闭式负压引流治疗难愈性创面的临床效果。方法将7 8例慢性创面患者随机分为2组,治疗组3 8例,采用实用封闭式负压引流治疗;对照组4 0例,采用普通换药治疗。比较2组创面进入红期所需时间、治疗1周时的创面愈合率及创面愈合时间。结果治疗组治疗1周时的创面愈合率高于对照组(P0.0 5),治疗组创面进入红期所需时间、创面愈合时间均较对照组缩短(均P0.0 5)。结论实用封闭式负压引流治疗难愈性创面效果优于普通换药,可促进创面愈合,使用方便,值得推广。     

负压封闭引流技术对肌腱与骨外露创面的治疗

目的 研究负压封闭引流技术（vacuum sealing drainage,VSD）对四肢肌腱和骨骼外露创面的治疗作用.方法 对85例四肢软组织严重损伤合并肌腱、骨骼外露者采用负压封闭引流持续治疗,7～14d为1个周期,应用1～4个周期,维持负压40～50kpa.其中新鲜创面组53例（单纯肌腱外露29例,单纯骨外露8例,肌腱骨骼均外露16例）.慢性创面组32例（单纯肌腱外露12例,单纯骨外露9例,肌腱骨骼均外露11例）.根据创面肉芽生长情况,分别行二期缝合、植皮或组织瓣转移闭合创面.结果 本组85例经负压封闭引流治疗1～4个周期后,创面可采用直接缝合、植皮或组织瓣转移覆盖,无1例发生感染.结论 VSD可以有效保护严重损伤肢体暴露的肌腱和骨骼,减少污染.     

负压封闭引流与常规敷料加压包扎治疗大面积皮肤撕脱伤的疗效对比研究

目的探讨负压封闭引流技术治疗大面积皮肤撕脱伤的临床疗效。方法对本院2007年3月—2010年8月采用原位全厚皮片回植方法治疗的62例大面积皮肤撕脱伤病例进行回顾性研究,其中多聚乙烯醇明胶海绵覆盖回植皮片、持续负压封闭吸引（负压引流组）35例,传统敷料加压包扎覆盖回植皮片（敷料加压组）27例。观察两组术后皮片成活情况、创面感染率和创面愈合效果,记录平均住院时间。结果负压引流组中有31例回植全厚皮片全部成活,皮片成活率88.6%,余4例皮片存活面积〉95%,;2例遗留创面感染,感染率5.7%;平均住院时间（12.3±5.4）d。敷料加压组全部成活18例,皮片成活率66.7%,余9例皮片成活面积〉75%;6例遗留创面感染,感染率22.2%;平均住院时间（19.7±8.3）d。对两组皮片成活率、创面感染率和平均住院时间进行比较,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组经换药或二次手术植皮后,撕脱创面均愈合。结论与常规敷料加压包扎技术比较,封闭负压引流技术可提高大面积皮肤撕脱伤创面植皮的成活率,降低感染率,缩短住院天数,是治疗大面积皮肤撕脱伤较为理想的方法。     

负压封闭引流治疗四肢污染创面的护理

对42例(46处)四肢污染创面应用负压封闭引流技术治疗的同时,配合创面处理、心理护理、病情观察和加强引流管管理等护理措施,结果42例患者创面均有新鲜肉芽组织生长,为后期手术创造了条件,无护理并发症发生.提示对四肢污染创面应用持续负压封闭引流治疗有效,彻底的创面处理和密切的护理观察及引流管的管理是护理的关键环节.