探讨头孢甲肟与头孢拉啶治疗手术后切口感染的临床效果  

Clinical Effect of Ceftriaxone and Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Postoperative Wound Infection

作　　者：刘荣荣 LIU Rongrong(Department of Pharmacy,Heilongjiang Provincial Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Harbin Heilongjiang 150030,China)

机构地区：[1]黑龙江省中医药科学院药剂科,黑龙江哈尔滨150030

出　　处：《中国继续医学教育》2018年第19期116-117,共2页China Continuing Medical Education

摘　　要：目的研究分析术后切口感染使用头孢甲肟与头孢拉啶治疗的临床效果。方法我院对158例术后切口感染患者进行了分析研究,将患者分成了对照组和治疗组,均有79例,治疗组患者使用头孢甲肟与头孢拉啶治疗,对照组患者使用中药治疗,对两组的临床治疗情况进行比较分析。结果对照组总有效率是72.15%,治疗组总有效率是92.41%,P<0.05,两组差异有统计学意义。对照组的临床不良反应发生率是15.19%,治疗组不良反应发生率是3.80%,P<0.05,两组差异有统计学意义。结论术后切口感染使用头孢甲肟与头孢拉啶治疗的效果比中药优秀。Objective To study and analyze the clinical effect of cefoperoxime and ceftriaxone in treating postoperative wound infection. Methods 158 cases of postoperative incision infection in our hospital were analyzed. The patients were divided into the control group and the treatment group, with 79 cases in each group. The patients in the treatment group were treated with ceftriaxone and Cefradine, while the patients in the control group were treated with Chinese medicine. The clinical treatment of the two groups was compared and analyzed. Results The effective rate of the control group was 72.15%, and the effective rate of the treatment group was 92.41%, P〈 0.05. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant. The clinical adverse reaction rate in the control group was 15.19%, the adverse reaction rate in the treatment group was 3.80%, P〈 0.05, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. Conclusion Cefoperoxime and ceftriaxone are better than traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of postoperative wound infection.

关 键 词：头孢甲肟 头孢拉啶 术后 切口感染 临床 疗效 

分 类 号：R619[医药卫生—外科学]