Vacuum sealing drainage therapy using polyvinyl alcohol hydrated foam material for large soft tissue defects

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.25.027

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: In various clinical treatments of soft tissue defects, vacuum sealing drainage technology can effectively control wound infection, shorten the treatment time, and accelerate wound healing.
OBJECTIVE: To further understand the features and characteristics of hydrated ethanol polyethylene foam vacuum sealing drainage treatment, and compare the treatment effects against soft tissue defects with the conventional dressing change treatment.
METHODS: A total of 140 cases of large soft tissue defects were divided randomly into two groups. Observation group received hydrated ethanol polyethylene foam vacuum sealing drainage treatment, while control group was treated by conventional dressing change. The degree of pain relief during treatment, the family satisfaction, the survival rate of first skin-grafting, the time needed before skin-grafting, the hospitalization time, the number of operations, the readmission rates, the complication rate and other clinical effectiveness indicators were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In the observation group, visual analog scale scores decreased 5.76±0.68, in the control group visual analog scale score decreased 2.85±0.53, with significant differences between the two groups (P < 0.05), and family satisfaction degree of the observation group was higher (P < 0.05). The survival rate of first skin-grafting of the observation group was higher than the control group (P < 0.05), the time needed before skin-grafting, the hospitalization time, the number of operations, the readmission rates, and the complication rate were lower than the control group (P < 0.05). The results showed that, compared with conventional dressing change treatment, hydrated ethanol polyethylene foam vacuum sealing drainage has advantages of light pain, short treatment time, low rate of complications, and high efficacy.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：生物材料；骨生物材料; 口腔生物材料; 纳米材料; 缓释材料; 材料相容性；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: polyethylene, ethanol, negative-pressure wound therapy

CLC Number:

R318

Jiang Xue-jin, Yin Xia. Vacuum sealing drainage therapy using polyvinyl alcohol hydrated foam material for large soft tissue defects[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(25): 4090-4094.

Figures/Tables 1

2.1 参与者数量分析 140例患者均进入结果分析。 2.2 两组治疗中目测类比评分下降值及家属满意度比较观察组治疗后目测类比评分下降分值为5.76±0.68，对照组下降分值为2.85±0.53，经t 检验，两组目测类比评分下降值比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)；观察组家属满意度评分为9.21±1.20，对照组家属满意度评分为7.05±0.96，经t检验，两组家属满意度评分比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)；两者比较，观察组缓解疼痛的效果更好，家属满意度更高，见表1。 2.3 两组首次植皮存活率及植皮手术前所需治疗时间的比较观察组70例中，首次植皮存活68例，首次植皮存活率97%；对照组70例中，首次植皮存活64例，首次植皮存活率91%；两组数据经计数资料χ2检验差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。首次清创术后至植皮手术前所需的时间，观察组为(12.75±5.31) d，对照组为(23.13±15.05) d，二者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。结果说明与对照组相比，观察组首次植皮存活率更高、首次清创术后植皮手术前所需时间更短，见表1。 2.4 两组住院时间及手术次数比较观察组住院时间为(25.6±5.5) d，对照组为(37.2±12.8) d，二者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)；观察组手术次数为2.05±0.66，对照组为2.87±1.34，二者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。结果说明与对照组相比，观察组住院时间更短、手术次数更少。 2.5 两组再次入院率及并发症发生情况比较观察组再次入院率为0.03%，对照组为0.10%，二者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。观察组并发症发生率为21.5%，对照组为 34.7%，二者比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。结果说明与对照组相比，观察组再次入院率更低、并发症发生更少。 2.6 不良反应治疗过程中，观察组70例均未发现有与VSD敷料直接相关的不良反应发生。但在具体操作中，需要注意必须保证整个系统封闭严密，始终维持封闭创面内的有效负压；否则创面处于封闭而无负压的环境中，反而会导致感染加重。"

References

[1] 裘华德.负压封闭引流技术[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2003:85.
[2] 陈江,池达智,肖灼,等.负压封闭引流术在急诊治疗四肢软组织严重创伤的疗效观察[J].重庆医学,2012,41(26):2755-2757
[3] 邹晓防,蒋玉洁,曹卫红,等.可冲洗负压封闭引流技术在复杂性创面修复中的应用[J].创伤外科杂志,2011,13(1):76.
[4] 王亚平,王新春,熊才亮,等.应用负压封闭引流技术治疗大面积软组织创伤[J].临床骨科杂志,2011,14(4):456-457.
[5] 李学拥,李望舟,李跃军,等.封闭负压引流技术敷料下的正压及其产生机理[J].西北国防医学杂志,2007,28(1):16-18.
[6] 许龙顺,陈绍宗,乔骋,等.负压对创面血流量的影响[J].第四军医大学学报,2000,21(8):976-978.
[7] 谢惠,陈学军.负压封闭引流技术(VSD)治疗难愈性创面的效果观察[J].中国医药指南,2012,10(3O):420-421.
[8] 华树良,韦文.负压封闭引流修复难愈性创面的研究进展[J].右江医学,2010,38(6):755-758.
[9] 熊舒原,黄祖根,熊春林,等.VSD技术治疗难治性创面的临床疗效观察[J].福建医科大学学报,2013,47(3):176-178.
[10] 刘三风,刘志豪,戴志波.负压封闭引流技术(VSD)对各种复杂创面修复的临床研究[J].当代医学,2009,15(6):66-67．
[11] 白明,曾昂,张海林,等.自制简易负压吸引装置在创面修复术前的应用[J].中国美容医学,2007,16(11):148.
[12] Weed T, Ratif C, Drake DB. Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy: does the wound VAC enhance bacterial clearance?Ann Plast Surg.2004;52(3): 276-280.
[13] 刘朋飞,郭力.负压吸引在创面修复中的研究进展[J].西部医学, 2013,25(8):1274-1276.
[14] 龙峰,杨福秋.持续负压封闭引流在创伤外科中的应用[J].中国社区医师:医学专业,2010,12(25):59.
[15] 王瑞,杨壮群,白转丽,等.负压封闭引流技术和传统换药治疗四肢软组织缺损创面效果比较[J].中国美容医学,2013,22(17):1750- 1753.
[16] Timmers MS, Grasfland N, Bemards AT, et al. Negative pressure wound treatment with polyvinyl alcohol foam and polyhexanide antiseptic solution instillation in posttraumatic osteomyelitis.Wound Repair Regeu.2009;17(2):278-286.
[17] 王俊.负压封闭引流技术与传统换药治疗四肢软组织缺损创面的临床观察[D].中南大学,2010.
[18] 李俊宽,孙明举.负压封闭引流技术及其在骨外科中的应用[J].人民军医,2009,52(5):327.
[19] Huskisson EC.Measurement of pain.J Rheumatol. 1982;9(5): 768-769.
[20] Laforet K,Woodbury MG,Sibbald RG.Wound bed preparation and complementary and alternative medidne.Adv Skin Wound Care.2011;24(5):226-236.
[21] 李建飞,黄巧玲.VSD治疗骨科创伤及感染创面的临床疗效观察[J].实用临床医学,2009,10(7):51-52.
[22] Morykwas MJ,Argenta LC,Shelton-Brown EI,et al. Vacuum- assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Hast Surg.1997;38(6):553-562.
[23] Conquest AM,Garofalo JH,Maziarz DM,et al.Hemodynamic ef—fects of the vacuumassisted closure device on open mediastinal wounds.J Surg Res.2003;115(2):209-213.
[24] 王春喜,卢怡,王晓勇.负压封闭引流促进创伤修复机制的研究进展[J].创伤外科杂志,2009,11(2):184-186.
[25] 万静雯,彭菁.负压封闭引流技术在创伤外科中的应用[J].现代护理,2007,13(9):860-861.
[26] 赵万秋,钱火红.外科创面封闭式负压引流的应用研究现状[J].解放军护理杂志,2007,24(3):48-49.
[27] 卢朝阳.应用负压引流护创材料(VSD)治疗四肢复杂创面临床观察[J].吉林医学,2012,33(19):4145-4146.
[28] 李靖,陈绍宗,李学拥,等.封闭负压引流对创面微循环超微结构影响的实验室研究[J].中国实用美容整形外科杂志,2006,17(1): 75-77.
[29] 亓会涛,郭新银,高圣龙.封闭负压引流技术在损伤感染创面中的应用[J].泰山医学院学报,2011,4(38):298-299.
[30] 阿玛德,余国荣,陶圣祥,等.封闭式负压引流治疗下肢大面积软组织缺损的临床观察[J].医学新知杂志,2005,15(2):45-46.
[31] Kam J.美国负压创面治疗技术[M].周常青,译.北京:科学技术文献出版社,2005:29-30.