优拓包裹技术治疗体表脓肿切开引流术后创面的效果观察  

Observation of the effect of Urgotul parcel technology used for treatment of surface abscess incision and drainage of the wound

作　　者：周少婧[1] 吴玲[1] 夏冬云[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院门诊伤口护理室,210008

出　　处：《中国实用护理杂志》2018年第3期187-191,共5页Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing

基　　金：南京鼓楼医院护理科研课题（ZSH340）

摘　　要：目的探讨优拓包裹藻酸盐银离子敷料技术在治疗体表脓肿切开引流术后创面中的临床应用价值和护理经验。方法将接受体表脓肿切开引流术后创面换药的150例患者按来院时间分为A、B、C3组，每组各50例。A组为2017年1-5月就诊患者，应用优拓包裹藻酸盐银离子敷料技术；B组为2016年6-12月就诊患者，采用高渗盐换药；C组为2015年11月至2016年5月就诊患者，采用传统的方法用油纱换药。每组在感染控制后均使用优拓治疗，观察每组患者在创面愈合时间、感染控制时间、换药次数、换药费用、去除敷料和填塞敷料时疼痛评分几方面的差异。结果A组的创面感染控制时间、愈合时间、去除敷料时患者疼痛程度、填塞敷料时的疼痛程度、总换药次数和费用分别为（5.1 ± 1.4）d、（22.9 ± 6.5）d、（1.3 ± 0.9）分、（1.9 ± 1.2）分、（6.6 ± 1.9）次、（603.81 ± 116.82）元，B组分别为（6.7 ± 1.4）d、（24.7 ± 7.2）d、（1.8 ± 1.0）分、（4.1 ± 1.4）分、（11.5 ± 3.3）次、（736.94 ± 203.81）元，C组分别为（11.1 ± 2.1）d、（31.7 ± 3.8）d、（4.62 ± 1.3）分、（2.4 ± 1.1）分、（31.7 ± 3.7）次、（1 617.20 ± 303.98）元。3组比较差异有统计学意义（F=30.48-931.29，均P〈0.01）。A组在创面感染控制时间、去除敷料时患者疼痛程度、换药次数和费用几方面都优于B组和C组（均P〈0.05）。A组的创面愈合时间比C组短（P〈0.01），但和B组几乎相同（P〉0.05）；填塞敷料时A组和C组患者的疼痛程度均比B组轻（均P〈0.01），而A组患者的疼痛程度和C组相当（P〉0.05）。结论在体表脓肿切开引流术术后换药中，优拓包裹银离子藻酸盐敷料的技术能有效控制感染，促进伤口愈合，减轻换药疼痛，减少换药次数，降低换药费用，提高患者依从性，值得临床上推广应用。Objective To explore the clinical application value and nursing experience of Urgotul parcel technology used for the treatment of surface abscess incision and drainage of the wound.MethodsA total of 150 patients with surface abscess incision and drainage of the wound who received treatment in our hospital wound care room divided into A group, B group and C group （each group had 50 cases）. Considering the characteristics of outpatients and the requirements of ethics, A group of patients from January to May of 2017 received the technology of Urgotul parcel alginate dressing with silver, B group of patients from June to December of 2016 received the treatment by the Mesalt and C group of patients from November 2015 to May 2016 used petrolatum gauze. After the infection control, each group received the treatment by Urgotul. Observe the difference with wound healing time, infection control time, the pain score of removing the dressings and filling of dressings, the number and the cost of wound care of patients.ResultsIn A group, the scores of infection control time, wound healing time, the pain score of removing the dressings and filling of dressings, the number and the cost of wound care were （5.1±1.4） days, （22.9±6.5） days, （1.3±0.9） points, （1.9±1.2） points, （6.6±1.9） times, （603.81±116.82） yuan, B group were （6.7±1.4） days, （24.7±7.2） days, （1.8±1.0） points, （4.1±1.4） points, （11.5±3.3） times, （736.94±203.81） yuan, and C group were （11.1±2.1） days, （31.7±3.8） days, （4.62±1.3） points, （2.4±1.1） points, （31.7±3.7） times, （1 617.20±303.98） yuan. The difference between the three groups was statistically significant （F=30.48-931.29, all P〈0.01）. In infection control time, the pain score of removing the dressings, the number and the cost of wound care A group was better than B group and C group （P 〈0.05）. The wound healing time of A group was shorter than C group （P 〈0.01）, but was the same as B group （P〉0

关 键 词：疖病 引流术 盐水 高渗 优拓 银离子敷料 

分 类 号：R473.6[医药卫生—护理学]