不同敷料组合对烧伤患者供皮区创面微环境的影响

目的 了解不同敷料组合对烧伤创面微环境及愈合的影响.方法 选择烧伤后需行手术植皮的患者186例,供皮区创面取皮厚度均为0.3 mm.将200个供皮区创面按表格随机法进行分组,分为藻酸盐棉垫组(藻酸盐敷料+棉垫)、凡士林棉垫组(凡士林油纱+棉垫)、藻酸盐泡沫组(藻酸盐敷料+泡沫敷料)、凡士林泡沫组(凡七林油纱+泡沫敷料).观察各种敷料对患者创面水分蒸发量及pH值的影响,比较各组创面的细菌定植情况、揭除敷料时患者疼痛程度及创面愈合时间.结果 共有184例患者的198个创面完成试验全过程,4种组合敷料可造成不同的创面微环境.藻酸盐棉垫组、凡士林棉垫组、藻酸盐泡沫组、凡士林泡沫组患者创面的敷料表面水分蒸发量分别为(35.5±3.2)、(31.3±2.8)、(23.1±2.9)、(18.1±2.3)mL·h-1·m-2,保湿性能以凡士林泡沫组为佳;创面pH值分别为7.22±0.06、7.41±0.03、7.05±0.03、7.34±0.06.创面细菌培养阳性率以藻酸盐泡沫组(4.0%)最低,凡士林泡沫组(22.4%)最高.揭除患者创面敷料时疼痛程度以藻酸盐泡沫组最轻(0.98±0.12),凡士林棉垫组最重(8.14±0.82).创面愈合时间藻酸盐泡沫组最短,为(6.7±0.8)d;凡士林泡沫组最长,为(15.6±3.5)d.结论 不同敷料在同样创面上使用,会营造不同的创面微环境;该环境与创面愈合时间密切相关,湿度对创面愈合的影响比pH值更为重要.

Effect of different dressing materials in various combinations on wound microenvironment of donor site in burn patients

Objective To investigate the effect of dressing materials in various combinations on bum wound microenvironment and healing condition. Methods Two hundred donor sites with wounds of 0.3 mm in depth in 186 burn patients, who needed skingrafting and admitted to our ward were enrolled in study, and they were divided into A ( with dressing composed of aiginate + cotton pad for donor area), B ( with dressing composed of vaseline gauze + cotton pad for donor area) , C (with dressing composed of algi-nate+ foam dressing for donor area), D ( with dressing composed of vaseline gauze + foam dressing for donor area) groups according to random table method. Effect of dressings on wound evaporation and pH value were observed. Bacterial colonization, degree of pain complained by patients after dressing change, and wound healing time in each group were compared. Results One hundred and eighty-four patients complied with the study, while 2 patients were excluded due to untimely falling-off of the dressing. Wound evaporaton in respectively, among them B group showed optimal effect of keeping humidity (P<0.01). Wound pH value in A, B, C, D groups was 7.22±0.06, 7.41±0.03, 7.05±0.03, 7.34±0.06, respectively, among them it was highest in B group. The positive rate of bacteria in D group was highest (22.4%), and lowest in C group (4.0%). Pain was lightest in C group (score was 0.98±0.12), and most serious in B group ( score was 8.14±0.82). The shortest wound healing time was seen in C group (6.7±0.8 d) , and longest in D group (15.6±3.5 d). Conclusions Application of various dressings on similar wounds can pro-duce different wound microenvironment, which is closely related to wound healing time. Compared with pH value, humidity is the more important factor for wound healing.