一次性闭合高负压引流瓶在根治性颈淋巴结清扫术后应用的研究  

The study of the application of high vacuum wound drainage system after radical neck dissection

作　　者：欧明明[1] 韩培彦[1] 黄晓峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院口腔科,北京100050

出　　处：《临床和实验医学杂志》2017年第12期1232-1234,共3页Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine

基　　金：北京市卫计委科技成果和适宜技术推广项目(编号:TG-2015-018)

摘　　要：目的对照根治性颈淋巴结清扫术(RND)后使用不同种引流装置伤口区引流液量变化,找出能够更好地降低术后感染风险、减少围手术期并发症的方法。方法回顾我科5年内行RND患者58例,29例术后使用一次性闭合高负压引流瓶(Hvwds组),29例术后使用普通负压引流瓶(Cwds组)。记录并比较两组患者术后伤口每日引流量及总引流量。结果两组患者术后伤口区引流液总量及两组间每日引流量比较无统计学差异,随着术后时间延长,两组引流量平均值均呈下降趋势,Hvwds组下降趋势较Cwds组更明显。结论两种引流方式对患者术后伤口区引流总量无影响,但使用一次性闭合高负压引流瓶可以缩短患者带管时间,有利于降低感染风险,减少手术并发症。Objective To find out a better way to reduce the risk of postoperative infection and perioperative period complications, the drainage fluid volume change of wound after radical neck dissection in our department were reviewed. Methods 5 8 patients who had radical neck dissection in recent 5 years were reviewd. There were 29 patients who used high vacuum wound drainage system, and 29 patients who used closed wound drainage system. The daily and total drainage fluid volume after operation of the two groups were recorded and compared. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in the total drainage volume and the daily flow, but there was significant difference in daily drainage fluid volume internal of each group. Conclusion The two drainage methods had no different effect on total drainage fluid v olume , but the use of high vacuum wound drainage system can shorten the time of patients with bottle, reduce the risk of infection and reduce surgical complications.

关 键 词：根治性颈淋巴结清扫术 一次性闭合高负压引流瓶 普通负压引流瓶 引流液量 

分 类 号：R739.8[医药卫生—肿瘤]