切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05) : 398 -405. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2021.05.005

论著

微动力负压技术用于儿童四肢及躯干创面植皮术中的疗效观察
张梦思1, 麻艺群1, 付晋凤1,(), 朱辉1, 袁子萱1   
  1. 1. 650031 昆明市儿童医院烧伤整形外科 云南省儿童医学中心
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-03 出版日期:2021-10-01
  • 通信作者: 付晋凤
  • 基金资助:
    昆明市卫生健康委员会卫生科研基金资助项目(2019-04-03-001)

Clinical effect of micro-dynamic negative pressure wound therapy on skin grafting of limbs and trunk wounds of childron

Mengsi Zhang1, Yiqun Ma1, Jinfeng Fu1,(), Hui Zhu1, Zixuan Yuan1   

  1. 1. Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Kunming Childrn′s Hospital, Yunnan Children′s Medical Center, Kuming 650031, China
  • Received:2021-07-03 Published:2021-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Jinfeng Fu
引用本文:

张梦思, 麻艺群, 付晋凤, 朱辉, 袁子萱. 微动力负压技术用于儿童四肢及躯干创面植皮术中的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2021, 16(05): 398-405.

Mengsi Zhang, Yiqun Ma, Jinfeng Fu, Hui Zhu, Zixuan Yuan. Clinical effect of micro-dynamic negative pressure wound therapy on skin grafting of limbs and trunk wounds of childron[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2021, 16(05): 398-405.

目的

对比儿童四肢及躯干创面植皮术中应用打包加压、负压封闭引流(VSD)技术和微动力负压技术(MDNPWT)固定皮片的效果,分析MDNPWT应用于儿童创面四肢及躯干植皮术的临床疗效。

方法

采用前瞻性随机对照研究,选择2019年8月至2021年5月昆明市儿童医院收治的符合入组标准并完成研究的患儿共90例,将患儿按随机数字表法分为MDNPWT组、VSD组及打包组。3组患儿入院后均行术前常规创面处理,手术清创后取自体大张中厚皮移植修复创面,MDNPWT组使用微动力负压护创敷料固定移植皮片,其余2组分别使用VSD及传统打包方法固定移植皮片。3组患儿均于术后7 d拆除敷料,常规换药至创面完全愈合。观察并记录3组患儿手术时间、创面愈合率、术后换药次数、手术及术后治疗总费用、疼痛情况(FLACC评分)及术后不良反应发生情况。数据比较分别采用单因素方差分析、SNK-q检验、重复测量方差分析及χ2检验。

结果

MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组的手术时长分别为(46.1±10.5)、(77.0±11.6)、(53.9±19.6)min,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=85.54, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=17.51,P<0.01),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=3.79,P<0.01)。MDNPWT与打包组、VSD组的创面愈合率分别为(96.3±3.2)、(77.2±10.9)、(91.8±7.3)%,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=47.85, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=13.11,P<0.01),MDNPWT组与VSD组比较,差异无统计学意义(q=3.79,P>0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组的术后换药次数分别为(2.4±1.2)、(8.4±2.8)、(2.5±1.7)次,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=82.36, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较比较,差异有统计学意义(q=15.66,P<0.01),与VSD组比较,差异无统计学意义(q=0.25, P>0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组的手术及术后治疗费用分别为(5253.7±652.3)、(7545.6±736.8)、(6543.3±481.4)元,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=96.53, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=19.64, P<0.01),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=10.47, P<0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组术后1 h FLACC评分分别为(3.7±1.2)、(5.6±1.7)、(5.5±1.5)分,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=15.35, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=7.03, P<0.01),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=6.36,P<0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组术后48 h FLACC评分分别为(2.1±0.7)、(2.7±0.9)、(3.2±0.6)分,组间总体比较差异有统计学意义(F=13.46, P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=3.71, P<0.05),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=7.34, P<0.01)。术后首次换药,MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组分别为( 3.1±1.3)、(4.8±1.4)、(4.3±1.5)分,组间比较差异有统计学意义(F=10.61,P<0.01);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=6.37,P<0.01),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(q=4.43,P<0.01)。术后不良反应:MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组感染发生率分别为3.4%、5.9%、3.7%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.63,P>0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组湿疹发生率分别为3.4%、5.9%、25.9%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.06,P<0.05);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.20,P>0.05),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.77, P<0.05)。MDNPWT组与打包组及VSD组张力性水疱发生率分别为0、5.9%、18.5%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=8.67,P<0.05);MDNPWT组与打包组比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=1.76, P<0.05),与VSD组比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.90,P<0.05)。

结论

在儿童四肢及躯干创面植皮治疗中,应用MDNPWT固定移植皮片能有效缩短手术时间,提高创面愈合率及减少术后换药次数及疼痛、降低治疗费用,减少术后不良反应,安全有效。

Objective

To compare the effects of applying packing compression, vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) technology and micro-dynamic negative pressure therapy (MDNPWT) in skin grafting on children′s limbs and trunk wounds, and analyze the clinical efficacy of MDNPWT in children′s wound skin grafting.

Methods

The prospective randomized controlled study were used, from August 2019 to May 2021, Kunming Children′s Hospital admitted a total of 90 children who met the enrollment criteria and completed the study. The children were divided into MDNPWT group and VSD group according to the random number table method. And packaging group. After admission, the three groups of children underwent routine preoperative wound treatment. During the operation, the wound was debrided and then a large medium thick leather was used to repair the wound. The MDNPWT group used microdynamic negative pressure wound dressing to fix the skin graft, and the other two groups used VSD and traditional packaging methods to fix the skin graft. piece. The dressings were removed 7 days after the operation of the children in the 3 groups, and the dressing was changed routinely until the wounds healed completely. Observed and recorded the operation time, wound healing rate, number of postoperative dressing changes, surgical and postoperative treatment costs, pain (FLACC score) and postoperative adverse reactions in the three groups. The measurement data were compared by one-way analysis of variance test, SNK-q test and repeated measures analysis of variance, the count data were compared by χ2 test.

Results

The operation time of MDNPWT group, packing group and VSD group: (46.1±10.5) , (77.0±11.6) , (53.9±19.6) min, respectively, the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=85.54, P<0.01 ); The MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was statistically significant(q=17.51, P<0.01), and compared with the VSD group, the difference was statistically significant(q=3.79, P<0.01). The wound healing rates of MDNPWT, packaged group and VSD group were (96.3±3.2)%, (77.2±10.9)%, (91.8±7.3)%, respectively, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=47.85, P<0.01) ; Comparing MDNPWT group with packaged group, the difference was statistically significant(q=13.11, P<0.01), comparing MDNPWT group with VSD group, the difference was not statistically significant (q=3.79, P>0.05). The number of postoperative dressing changes in the MDNPWT group, the packaged group and the VSD group were (2.4±1.2), (8.4±2.8), (2.5±1.7) times, respectively, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=82.36, P<0.01); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was statistically significant (q=15.66, P<0.01), compared with the VSD group, the difference was not statistically significant (q=0.25, P>0.05). The surgical and postoperative treatment costs of the MDNPWT group, the packing group and the VSD group were (5253.7±652.3), (7545.6±736.8)and (6543.3±481.4) yuan, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups (F=96.53, P<0.01); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was statistically significant (q=19.64, P<0.01), and compared with the VSD group, the differences were statistically significant(q=10.47, P<0.05). FLACC score: 1 h after operation, MDNPWT group, packaged group and VSD group were respectively (3.7±1.2), (5.6±1.7), (5.5±1.5) points, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=15.35, P<0.01); MDNPWT group compared with packaged group, the difference was statistically significant (q=7.03, P<0.01), compared with VSD group, the difference was statistically significant (q=6.36, P<0.05). 48 hours after the operation, the scores of the MDNPWT group, the packing group and the VSD group were (2.1±0.7), (2.7±0.9)and (3.2±0.6) points, respectively. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=13.46, P< 0.01); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was statistically significant (q=3.71, P<0.05), and compared with the VSD group, the differences were statistically significant (q=7.34, P<0.01). After the first dressing change after operation, the scores of MDNPWT group, packaged group and VSD group were (3.1±1.3), (4.8±1.4), and (4.3±1.5) points, respectively. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (F=10.61, P <0.01); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was statistically significant(q=6.37, P<0.01), and compared with the VSD group, the differences were statistically significant (q=4.43, P<0.01). Adverse reactions after surgery: The incidence of infection was 3.4%, 5.9%, and 3.7% in the MDNPWT group, packaged group and VSD group, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (χ2=0.63, P>0.05). The incidence of eczema was 3.4%, 5.9%, and 25.9% in the MDNPWT group and the packaged group and the VSD group, respectively. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (χ2=6.06, P<0.05); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packaged group, the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=0.20, P>0.05), compared with the VSD group, the difference was statistically significant(χ2=5.77, P<0.05). The incidence of tension blisters was 0, 5.9%, and 18.5% in the MDNPWT group, the packing group and the VSD group, respectively. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (χ2=8.67, P<0.05); the MDNPWT group was compared with the packing group, the difference was statistically significant (χ2= 1.76, P<0.05), compared with the VSD group, the difference was statistically significant (χ2=5.90, P<0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of children′s limbs and trunk wounds with skin grafts, the application of microdynamic negative pressure technology to fix the skin grafts can effectively shorten the operation time, improve wound healing rate, reduce the number of postoperative dressing changes and pain, reduce treatment costs, and reduce postoperative adverse reactions, Safe and effective.

表1 3组患儿一般资料比较
表2 3组患儿观察指标比较
表3 3组患儿FLACC评分比较(分,±s)
表4 3组患儿术后不良反应发生情况比较[例(%)]
图1 应用MDNPWT于患儿前胸部肉芽植皮创面。A示换药27 d后,前胸部Ⅱ度创面上皮化,Ⅲ度创面肉芽组织形成;B示水刀清创肉芽创面;C示大张中厚皮移植于前胸部创面;D示微动力负压护创敷料固定植皮区域;E示弹力纱布绷带固定包扎;F示术后7 d,移植皮片成活良好;MDNPWT为微动力负压技术
[1]
刘磊,胡楠,冯瑞,等.负压封闭引流术在儿童大面积皮肤软组织损伤中的应用[J]. 组织工程与重建外科2020, 16(5): 389-393.
[2]
Anghel EL, Kim PJ. Negative-pressure wound therapy: a comprehensive review of the evidence[J]. Plast Reconst Surg, 2016, 138(3 Suppl): S129-137.
[3]
Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, et al. The FLACC:A behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children [J]. Pediatr Nurs, 1997, 23(3): 293-297.
[4]
Horch RE, Ludolph I, Müller-Seubert W, et al. Topical negative-pressure wound therapy: emerging devices and techniques[J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2020, 17(2):139-148.
[5]
Biermann N, Geissler EK, Brix E, et al. Oxygen levels during negative pressure wound therapy[J]. J Tissue Viability, 2019, 28(4): 223-226.
[6]
Gkotsoulias E. Split Thickness Skin Graft of the Foot and Ankle Bolstered With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in a Diabetic Population: The Results of a Retrospective Review and Review of the Literature[J]. Foot Ankle Spec, 2020, 13(5): 383-391.
[7]
Jaffe L, Wu SC. Dressings, topical therapy, and negative pressure wound therapy [J]. Clin Podiatr Med Surg, 2019, 36(3): 397-411.
[8]
Cozza V, Pascale MM, Pepe G, et al. Empirical measurement of pressure in negative pressure wound therapy for infected wounds: how long can it really stay under pressure[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2019, 27(2): 190-195.
[9]
朱艳,宗明,熊国平,等. 微动力负压护创治疗糖尿病患者足部溃疡的临床疗效及价值[J]. 微创医学2021, 16(3): 341-343, 367.
[10]
刘钧,杨周健,唐青松,等. 封闭负压引流结合游离植皮修复小儿足部深部创面的疗效分析[J]. 临床小儿外科杂志2018, 17(5): 372-375.
[11]
Nather A, Hong NY, Lin WK, et al. Effectiveness of bridge V.A.C. dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers[J/OL]. Diabet Foot Ankle, 2011, 2[2020-06-08].

URL    
[12]
马承华,胡昕,程广斌,等. 微动力负压技术的真空压差形成过程及应用研究[J]. 医疗卫生装备2017, 38(3): 25-27.
[13]
周波,陈旭林,程浩,等. 微动力负压护创敷料对兔II度烧伤创面愈合的影响[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2015, 10(2): 103-106.
[14]
Seidel D, Storck M, Lawall H, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard moist wound care on diabetic foot ulcers in real-life clinical practice: results of the German DiaFu-RCT[J]. BMJ Open, 2020, 10(3): 1-16.
[15]
McElroy EF. Use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and a reticulated open cell foam dressing with through holes in the acute care setting[J]. Int Wound J, 2019, 16(3): 781-787.
[16]
刘晓彬,潘博涵,李海航,等. 微动力负压技术在婴幼儿深Ⅱ度烧伤创面的临床疗效观察[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2016, 11(5): 346-349.
[17]
郑小鹏,陈珏,陈甜胜,等. 微动力负压用于小面积深Ⅱ度烧伤患儿的初步疗效观察[J]. 中华烧伤杂志2019, 35(10): 720-725.
[1] 陶宏宇, 叶菁菁, 俞劲, 杨秀珍, 钱晶晶, 徐彬, 徐玮泽, 舒强. 右心声学造影在儿童右向左分流相关疾病中的评估价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 959-965.
[2] 刘琴, 刘瀚旻, 谢亮. 基质金属蛋白酶在儿童哮喘发生机制中作用的研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 564-568.
[3] 向韵, 卢游, 杨凡. 全氟及多氟烷基化合物暴露与儿童肥胖症相关性研究现状[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 569-574.
[4] 刘静, 王燕妮, 王继萍. 儿童毛发移植应用前景及病例讨论[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(04): 368-368.
[5] 张梦思, 麻艺群, 蒙礼娟, 朱辉, 付晋凤. 压力手套与指蹼加压带及泡沫型硅凝胶贴膜联合应用于儿童瘢痕性并指术后的效果观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(04): 329-334.
[6] 郑宝英, 黄小兰, 贾楠, 朱春梅. 儿童难治性肺炎支原体肺炎早期预警指标[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 215-221.
[7] 刘冉佳, 崔向丽, 周效竹, 曲伟, 朱志军. 儿童肝移植受者健康相关生存质量评价的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 302-309.
[8] 丁荷蓓, 王珣, 陈为国. 七氟烷吸入麻醉与异丙酚静脉麻醉在儿童腹股沟斜疝手术中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 570-574.
[9] 曾纪晓, 徐晓钢, 王欣星, 刘斐, 兰梦龙, 陶波圆, 梁子建, 叶志华, 罗媛圆. 达芬奇机器人辅助Swenson-like巨结肠根治术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 239-243.
[10] 中华医学会器官移植学分会, 中华医学会外科学分会外科手术学学组, 中华医学会外科学分会移植学组, 华南劈离式肝移植联盟. 劈离式供肝儿童肝移植中国临床操作指南[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 593-601.
[11] 刘军, 丘文静, 孙方昊, 李松盈, 易述红, 傅斌生, 杨扬, 罗慧. 在体与离体劈离式肝移植在儿童肝移植中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 688-693.
[12] 张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
[13] 王晓瑜, 郭群英, 牛雅萌, 赵成松. 公立儿童医院促进儿科就医均等化实践探析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 383-387.
[14] 陈晓胜, 何佳, 刘方, 吴蕊, 杨海涛, 樊晓寒. 直立倾斜试验诱发31 秒心脏停搏的植入心脏起搏器儿童一例并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 488-494.
[15] 曹亚丽, 高雨萌, 张英谦, 李博, 杜军保, 金红芳. 儿童坐位不耐受的临床进展[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 510-515.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?