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
作 者:代天国 徐波[1] 冉红兵[1] 邱银秀 程进强[1] 刘应凯 高婧 DAI Tianguo;XU Bo;RAN Hongbing;QIU Yinxiu;CHENG Jinqiang;LIU Yingkai;GAO Jing(Department of Stomatology,Panzhihua Central Hospital,617067,China;Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery,Panzhihua Central Hospital,Panzhihua Central Hospital,617067,China)
机构地区:[1]攀枝花市中心医院口腔科,617067 [2]攀枝花市中心医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科,617067
出 处:《实用口腔医学杂志》2023年第2期260-263,共4页Journal of Practical Stomatology
基 金:四川省卫健委科研课题(编号:20PJ276)。
摘 要:重症口腔颌面颈部多间隙感染患者占总住院患者的3.95%(115/2 910),其中男女比1.88∶1,平均年龄53岁(6~83岁),牙源性感染占80%,农村人群占79.13%。从发病到就诊时间平均为9.5 d(3~30 d),仅33.91%就诊于1周内。入院前3.48%的患者未接受过任何治疗,19.13%自服消炎药,县、乡两级医院仅对9例患者开髓、6例患者脓肿切排。入院后80例患者采用一次性多功能引流管辅助冲洗技术治疗,32例采用传统治疗。多功能引流管治疗组治愈率(90%vs 75%,P=0.03),住院天数(15.01±0.53 vs 18.13±0.85,P=0.02),抗菌药物使用天数(11.89±0.43 vs 16.25±0.84,P<0.00),医生换药频次(5.71±0.28 vs 23.75±1.63,P<0.00)等均优于传统组。The patients with life-threatening oral,maxillofacial and cervical multiple space infection accounted for 3.95%(115/2910)of the total inpatients in the authors department,the rural population accounted for 79.13%.The ratio of male to female was 1.88∶1,the average age was 53 years(6-83 years old),the odontogenic infection accounted for 80%,the average time from disease onset to the hospital was 9.5 days(3-30 days),only 33.91%of the hospital visits were within 1 week.Before admission,3.48%of the patients had not received any treatment,and 19.13%took anti-inflammatory drugs by themselves.County and township hospitals only performed pulpotomy drainage in 9 patients,abscess incision and drainage in 6 patients.After admission,80 patients were treated with disposable multifunctional drainage tube(DMDT)assisted with irrigation technology,32 patients were treated with traditional treatment.The cure rate(90%vs 75%,P=0.03),hospital stay days(15.01±0.53 vs 18.13±0.85,P=0.02),days of use of antibiotics(11.89±0.43 vs 16.25±0.84,P<0.00)and dressing change frequency(5.71±0.28 vs 23.75±1.63,P<0.00)in the DMDT group were better than those in the traditional treatment group.
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:216.73.216.7