静态与动态空气垫对卧床患者减压效果的比较  

Comparison of decompression effect of the static and dynamic air cushion on bedridden in-patients

作　　者：刘海英[1] 苏纯音[2] 胡雪萍[2] 蒋琪霞[3] 

机构地区：[1]江苏省无锡市第二人民医院大内科,214002 [2]江苏省无锡市第二人民医院护理部,214002 [3]南京军区总医院门诊部伤口护理中心,210002

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2012年第36期4363-4365,共3页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

摘　　要：目的比较静态与动态空气垫对住院卧床患者的减压效果，为优选减压设施提供依据。方法采用随机数字表法将2011年1—12月符合参研条件的住院卧床患者200例分成干预组100例与对照组100例，干预组采用美国产静态空气垫实施24h持续减压，连续5d；对照组采用国产动态空气垫实施24h持续减压，连续5d。采用全电脑压力传感器（Xsensor测压毯）平铺于两组患者身下，统一采取平卧位，于平卧2h后开始测量身体各部位所受的垂直压力及受压面积，测压毯将计算身体受压部位的平均压强峰值、平均压强大小及全身受压面积。监测每例患者卧床期间的皮肤完整性和压疮发生情况。结果干预组患者皮肤完整率为100％，未见压疮发生，而对照组发生Ⅰ期压疮3例，发生部位为：骶尾部2例、足跟部1例，压疮发生率为3％；干预组患者平卧位时，严重受压部位压强值由高到低为：骶尾部、肘部、脊柱、肩胛部、足跟部、头枕部。对照组严重受压部位压强值由高到低为：骶尾部、肘部、足跟部、肩胛部、脊柱、头枕部。对照组100例患者严重受压部位有281个，干预组100例患者严重受压部位245个，两组严重受压部位的个数比较，差异无统计学意义（χ2=110．32，P=0．238）。干预组受压部位的平均压强峰值及受压面积分别为（162．15±16．11）mmHg和（299．31±12．36）cm2，对照组受压部位、平均压强和受压面积分别为（210．83±23．15）mmHg和（382．14±23．56）cm2，差异有统计学意义（t分别为6．473，2．314；P〈0．05）。结论静态空气垫能降低受压部位的压强和减少受压面积，有利于预防压疮。Objective To compare the decompression effect of the static and dynamic air cushion on bedridden in-patients so as to provide evidence for optimal decompression facilities. Methods Totals of 200 bedridden in-patients who met the conditions for the study and were recruited from January to December 2011 and were randomly divided into intervention group and control group with 100 cases each group. The intervention group received 24 h continuous decompression for five days with the United States static air cushion, while the control group received the domestic dynamic air cushion to implement the 24 h continuous decompression for 5 consecutive days. Fully computerized pressure sensors （Xsensor manometry blanket） were put under the patients＇ body in two groups, taking the supine position. After 2 hours in the supine position, the vertical pressure, pressure area, average peak pressure, average pressure and the size of systemic pressure area were calculated by the manometry blanket. Monitored the occurrence of skin integrity and pressure ulcer in all patients. Results Patients in the intervention group had a skin integrity rate of 100% and had no pressure ulcer, while the control group had 3 cases of pressure ulcer（ location： 2 cases of sacrococcygeal and 1 cases of heel, and incidence rate of pressure ulcer is 3% ）. There were 281 serious pressure parts in control group,and that in intervention group were 245 ,no significant difference was found （χ2 = 110. 32, P = 0. 238 ）. Pressure value of serious pressure parts in control group from high to low, respectively, was that sacral tail, elbow, spinal, scapular, foot, and heel. While that in treatment group, respectively, was that sacral tail, elbow, foot, scapular, spinal, and heel. The average peak pressure and pressure area in the intervention group respectively were lower than that in the control group [ （ 162.15 ± 16.11 ） mm Hg vs （210.83 ± 23.15） mm Hg, （299.31 ±12.36） cm2 vs （382.14 ± 23.56） cm2 ], and the difference was statist

关 键 词：压力性溃疡 静态空气垫 动态空气垫 减压效果 

分 类 号：R472[医药卫生—护理学]