Application of a self-made portable simplified vacuum sealing drainage device in patients with poor surgical wound healing

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2019.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To discuss the application effect of a self-made portable simplified vacuum sealing drainage device in patients with poor surgical wound healing.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was made on 50 patients with poor surgical wound healing, which were hospitalized from January 2015 to October 2018 in Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Jingjiang People′s Hospital. Among them, 25 patients who used self-prepared portable simple-type were set as the treatment group, and 25 patients of continuous low negative pressure suction with iodine volv gauze packing and drainage were set as the control group. Morphological changes of wounds were observed in the two groups. The wound healing time, number of dressing changes, pain intensity, and cost of dressing changes were compared between the two groups. Data were processed with t test.

Results

In the treatment group, the wound surface was clean and the granulation tissue was fresh and rosy. In the control group, the growth of wound granulation tissue was not good and there was more effusion. The wound healing time, number of dressing changes, pain intensity, and cost of dressing changes of the treatment group were (14.7±4.3) d, (5.1±1.4) times, (5.9±1.4) points, (639.5±127.4) yuan, the corresponding indexes of the control group respectively were (38.6±5.9) d, (49.2±9.7) times, (8.2±1.8) points, (1 357.5±135.9) yuan, there were statistically significant differences in these corresponding indexes of patients between the two groups (t=-16.3, -32.8, -4.9, -38.5, with P values below 0.05).

Conclusions

This self-made portable simplified vacuum sealing drainage device can significantly reduce the wound healing time, number of dressing changes, pain intensity, and cost of dressing changes; greatly increase the healing rate of surgical wounds, better than the traditional method of dressing changes. Therefor, it is superior to the conventional dressing change and suitable for broader clinical use.

Key words: Negative-pressure wound therapy, Wounds and injuries, Wound healing, Pain

Hongbo Zhan, Qingqing Sun, Lei Yan, Jia Cai, Guozhong Lyu. Application of a self-made portable simplified vacuum sealing drainage device in patients with poor surgical wound healing[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2019, 14(03): 208-212.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2019.03.008

https://zhssyxfzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V14/I03/208

Figures/Tables 3

References 27

[1]	Guo SA, DiPietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing[J]. J Dent Res, 2010, 89(3): 219-229.
[2]	Schlosser KA, Otero J, Lincourt A, et al. Management of surgical incisions using incisional negative-pressure therapy[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2019, 143(Suppl 1): 15S-20S.
[3]	Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M, et al. Vacuum sealing as treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures[J]. Unfallchirurg, 1993, 96(9): 488-492.
[4]	Zhang CQ, Zheng HY, Wang B, et al. Treatment of Gustilo grade III leg fractures by external fixation associated with limited internal fixation[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2010, 13(2): 96-100.
[5]	Tang J, Guo WC, Yu L, et al. Clinical efficacy of artificial skin combined with vacuum sealing drainage in treating large-area skin defects[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2010, 13(5): 289-292.
[6]	易建中，谢元才，叶林娇，等. 自制注射器负压封闭引流器在腹部外科手术Ⅲ类切口防止切口感染的临床疗效[J]. 赣南医学院学报，2010, 30(2): 276.
[7]	苏开新. VSD负压封闭引流术在整形外科的应用[J]. 中国中医药咨讯，2010, 2(11): 73.
[8]	李清华，李霞，张健，等. 全厚皮移植中简易负压引流的应用[J]. 中国组织工程研究与临床康复，2010, 14(18): 3347-3351.
[9]	刘三风，刘志豪，戴致波. 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): 66-68.
[10]	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.
[11]	Tan L, Hou Z, Gao Y. Efficacy of combined treatment with vacuum sealing drainage and recombinant human epidermal growth factor for refractory wounds in the extremities and its effect on serum levels of IL-6, TNF-α and IL-2[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2018, 15(1): 288-294.
[12]	Chen XJ, Liu S, Gao GZ, et al. Effects of vacuum sealing drainage on the treatment of cranial bone-exposed wounds in rabbits[J]. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2017, 50(12): e5837.
[13]	王洪，罗怀灿，杨述华，等. 封闭式负压吸引技术治疗四肢骨筋膜室综合征[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志，2003, 5(4): 342-343.
[14]	王彦峰，裘华德. 负压封闭引流治疗严重急性软组织损伤合并感染创面[J]. 中华创伤杂志，1998, 14(4): 254-255.
[15]	王欢，夏芳，邢丹谋，等. 负压封闭冲洗引流治疗手部急慢性化脓性腱鞘炎的疗效分析[J]. 中华外科杂志，2017, 55(5): 384-388.
[16]	Ni J, Liu H, Liu X, et al. Vacuum sealing drainage as treatment of severe buttocks and perianal infection: a case report and review of the literature (care-compliant) [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94: e1766.
[17]	Cedidi C, Berger A, Ingianni G. The two-stage concept with temporary subcutaneous implantation of a vacuum sealing system: an alternative surgical approach in infected partial abdominal defects after lapratomy or abdominoplasty[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2002, 7: 399-403.
[18]	张美光，李志清，王甲汉，等. 负压封闭引流联合含氧液冲洗修复糖尿病患者慢性创面的效果观察[J]. 中华烧伤杂志，2014, 30(2): 116-123.
[19]	王顺富，王学文，蔡成，等. 骨科负压封闭引流技术的临床应用[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志，2007, 17(4): 420-421.
[20]	高益斌，童松林，潘方，等. 负压封闭引流术结合生肌膏外敷治疗褥疮的病例对照研究[J]．中国骨伤，2015, 28(2): 150-154.
[21]	郭晓波，李金晟，张菊芳，等. 负压封闭引流术联合皮瓣移植在慢性溃疡创面中的应用[J]. 中华整形外科杂志，2012, 28(4): 270-273.
[22]	孙勇，范薇，杨卫玺，等. 胰岛素溶液间断冲洗联合封闭式负压持续引流治疗糖尿病下肢慢性溃疡创面的疗效观察[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志，2015, 29(7): 812-817.
[23]	余黎，余国荣，陶圣祥，等. 负压封闭引流在毁损性断肢再植中的应用[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志，2008, 10(1): 44-48.
[24]	周杰，黄金华，徐刚，等. 游离植皮结合负压封闭引流技术治疗糖尿病足溃疡疗效研究[J]. 中国全科医学，2010, 10(8): 2546-2547.
[25]	Yuan XG, Zhang X, Fu YX, et al. Sequential therapy with "vacuum sealing drainage-artificial dermis implantation-thin partial thickness skin grafting" for deep and infected wound surfaces in children[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2016, 102(3): 369-373.
[26]	裘华德. 负压封闭引流技术[M]. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2003.
[27]	李永忠，胡晓东，Moris Topaz, 等. 简易封闭式负压引流治疗35例汶川地震伤员创面的效果分析[J]. 中国循证医学杂志，2009, 9: 279-282.

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄(岁，±s)	切口长度(cm, ±s)
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁，±s)	切口长度(cm, ±s)
治疗组	25	12	13	52.4±16.5	6.6±1.7
对照组	25	15	10	51.8±16.7	6.7±1.7
χ²值	?	0.325		?	?
t值	?	?		0.128	－0.234
P值	?	0.569		>0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄(岁，±s)	切口长度(cm, ±s)
组别	例数	男	女	年龄(岁，±s)	切口长度(cm, ±s)
治疗组	25	12	13	52.4±16.5	6.6±1.7
对照组	25	15	10	51.8±16.7	6.7±1.7
χ²值	?	0.325		?	?
t值	?	?		0.128	－0.234
P值	?	0.569		>0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	愈合时间(d)	换药次数(次)	疼痛程度(分)	换药材料费用(元)
治疗组	25	14.7±4.3	5.1±1.4	5.9±1.4	639.5±127.4
对照组	25	38.6±5.9	49.2±9.7	8.2±1.8	1 357.5±135.9
t值	?	－16.3	－32.8	－4.9	－38.5
P值	?	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

组别	例数	愈合时间(d)	换药次数(次)	疼痛程度(分)	换药材料费用(元)
治疗组	25	14.7±4.3	5.1±1.4	5.9±1.4	639.5±127.4
对照组	25	38.6±5.9	49.2±9.7	8.2±1.8	1 357.5±135.9
t值	?	－16.3	－32.8	－4.9	－38.5
P值	?	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export