等渗盐水湿敷与安普贴外敷治疗压疮疗效及经济效益比较  

Comparison of therapeutic effects and cost- effectiveness in treatment of pressure sore between saline-gauze wet-to- moist dressings and hydrocolloid dressings

作　　者：许萍萍[1] 励建安[1] 常小兰[2] 

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学康复系,江苏省南京市210029 [2]苏州大学附属第一医院心血管外科,江苏省苏州市215006

出　　处：《中国临床康复》2004年第36期8190-8191,共2页Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation

摘　　要：目的:对等渗盐水湿敷法和安普贴外敷法治疗压疮的疗效及两者间的经济效益进行分析,寻找一种经济实用,切实可行的压疮治疗方法。方法:40例压疮患者分为盐水组和安普贴组。盐水组采用等渗盐水湿敷法,三四小时更换敷料1次。安普贴组采用安普贴外敷法,每周更换敷料2次。观察疗效并比较两种方法的治疗效果和费用消耗。结果:①两组压疮患者均治愈。②盐水组和安普贴组疮面愈合天数分别为(26.0±4.2),(28.0±4.5)d,平均每天疮面愈合面积分别为(0.379±0.051),(0.351±0.053)cm2,两组基本相同。③盐水组和安普贴组费用消耗分别为(76.5±13.9),(234.0±37.2)元。结论:等渗盐水湿敷法和安普贴外敷法均能促进压疮的疮面愈合,效果相似,前者的费用明显低于后者。AIM:To compare the efficacy and cost effectiveness of saline gauze wet to moist dressings on pressure sore compared with the hydrocolloid dressings for an economic and feasible way to treat pressure sore. <METHODS:Forty patients were equally divided into saline gauze group and hydrocolloid group.The dressing change was every 3 to 4 hours once in saline gauze group,and the hydrocolloid group was twice per week.The efficacy and cost effectiveness of the two methods were observed and compared. <RESULTS:① All wounds were healed.② The healing course[(26.0 ± 4.2)vs(28.0± 4.5) days ]and speed [(0.379± 0.051) vs (0.351± 0.053) cm2] were similar between the groups.③ Cost was (76.5± 13.9) yuan for the saline gauze group and(234.0± 37.2)yuan for the hydrocolloid group. <CONCLUSION:Two methods are equally effective on pressure sore healing.However,the cost of the saline gauze treatment is much lower than that of the hydrocolloid.

关 键 词：压疮 等渗盐水湿敷 经济效益 

分 类 号：R59[医药卫生—内科学]