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]哈尔滨市第四医院,黑龙江哈尔滨150026 [2]哈尔滨医科大学附属第二医院,黑龙江哈尔滨150086
出 处:《中国药物经济学》2017年第3期114-117,共4页China Journal of Pharmaceutical Economics
摘 要:目的探讨改良式预真空引流管在口腔颌面部脓肿治疗中的应用价值。方法将40例因面部皮脂腺囊肿继发感染形成皮下脓肿的患者资料按随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,每组20例。观察组患者应用改良式预真空管对患者面部脓肿进行引流;对照组患者采取传统切开引流对患者面部脓肿进行广泛切开引流。对两组患者引流率和术后1个月术区瘢痕长度进行统计学比较。结果观察组患者引流率为(91±4)%,对照组引流率为(66±8)%,观察组与对照组引流率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者术后1个月术区瘢痕长度为(1.7±0.8)mm,对照组为(32.2±9.3)mm,观察组与对照组患者术后1个月术区瘢痕长度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与传统切开引流相比,改良式预真空引流管对脓肿引流作用更充分,术后瘢痕小。Objective To compare the drainage efficiency of improved pre vacuum drainage tube therapy and traditional incision and drainage therapy on patient with oral and maxillofacial abscess.Methods 40 patients with abscess of oral and maxillofacial region were randomly divided into two groups,treatment group and control group. The treatment group was drained with improved pre vacuum drainage tube.The control group was treated by incision and drainage therapy.Then observed the drainage efficiency of two groups.Compared the length of scars of two groups after 1 mouth.Results The drainage efficiency of treatment group was (91±4)%.The drainage efficiency of control group was (66±8)%.There was significant difference of the drainage efficiency between treatment group and control group,P〈0.05.The length of scar of the treatment group was (1.7±0.8)mm.The length of scar of the control group was (32.2±9.3)mm.There was a significant difference of the length of scar between the two groups,P〈 0.05.Conclusion Compared with the traditional open drainage,the improved pre vacuum drainage tube therapy was more effective,and there was less scar after treatment.
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:216.73.216.15