检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]南昌大学第二附属医院骨科,南昌330006 [2]黎川县中医院外科,江西黎川344600
出 处:《实用临床医学(江西)》2013年第1期38-39,共2页Practical Clinical Medicine
摘 要:目的探讨脉冲冲洗器在四肢清创术中的临床应用效果。方法48例四肢开放性损伤患者中采用脉冲冲洗器清创18例(观察组),采用常规人工倾倒冲洗法清创30例(对照组)。比较2组清创时间、冲洗液用量、二次清创率、术后拆线时间及冲洗费用,观察2组伤口愈合情况及不良反应发生情况。结果脉冲冲洗器清创较人工倾倒冲洗法冲洗液用量少、二次清创率低(P<0.05),且术后伤口愈合佳(P<0.05),但冲洗费用明显增高(P<0.05)。2组清创时间、术后拆线时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论脉冲冲洗器在清创术中应用效果良好,在患者经济条件允许的情况下,推荐使用。Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of pulsed lavage in debridement.Methods Forty-eight patients with open extremity injuries were assigned to receive debridement with either pulsed lavage(observation group,n=18)or artificial dumping rinse(control group,n=30).Debridement time,amount of flushing water,rate of the second debridement,time of suture removal,washing costs,wound healing and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Results The observation group had lower second debridement rate,less amount of flushing water,higher washing costs and better wound healing than the control group(P0.05).But no significant differences in debri-dement time and suture removal time were found between the two groups(P0.05).Conclusion The disposable pulsed lavage device is effective in debridement and should be recommended in patients who can pay the costs.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.144.154.109