Suppr超能文献

手术患者局部伤口护理使用封闭敷料与纱布敷料的比较:一项随机临床试验。

Occlusive vs gauze dressings for local wound care in surgical patients: a randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Ubbink Dirk T, Vermeulen Hester, Goossens Astrid, Kelner Raoul B, Schreuder Sanne M, Lubbers Maarten J

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Bioinformatics, Room J1B-215, Academic Medical Center, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Arch Surg. 2008 Oct;143(10):950-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.10.950.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare effectiveness and costs of gauze-based vs occlusive, moist-environment dressing principles.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Two hundred eighty-five hospitalized surgical patients with open wounds.

INTERVENTION

Patients received occlusive (ie, foams, alginates, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, hydrofibers, or films) or gauze-based dressings until their wounds were completely healed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end points were complete wound healing, pain during dressing changes, and costs. Secondary end point was length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Time to complete wound healing did not differ significantly between occlusive (median, 66 days; interquartile range [IQR], 29-133 days) and gauze-based dressing groups (median, 45 days; IQR, 26-106 days; log-rank P = .31). Postoperative wounds (62% of the wounds included) healed significantly (P = .02) quicker using gauze dressings (median, 45 days; IQR, 22-93 days vs median, 72 days; IQR, 36-132 days). Median pain scores were low and similar in the occlusive (0.90; IQR, 0.29-2.34) and the gauze (0.64; IQR, 0.22-1.95) groups (P = .32). Daily costs of occlusive materials were significantly higher (occlusive, euro6.34 [US $9.95] vs gauze, euro1.85 [US $2.90]; P < .001), but nursing time costs per day were significantly higher when gauze was used (occlusive, euro1.28 [US $2.01] vs gauze, euro2.41 [US $3.78]; P < .001). Total cost for local wound care per patient per day during hospitalization was euro7.48 (US $11.74) in the occlusive group and euro3.98 (US $6.25) in the gauze-based group (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

The occlusive, moist-environment dressing principle in the clinical surgical setting does not lead to quicker wound healing or less pain than gauze dressings. The lower costs of less frequent dressing changes do not balance the higher costs of occlusive materials. Trial Registration trialregister.nl Identifier: 56264738.

摘要

目的

比较基于纱布与封闭性、湿性环境敷料原则的有效性及成本。

设计

随机临床试验。

地点

荷兰阿姆斯特丹的学术医疗中心。

患者

285名住院的开放性伤口外科手术患者。

干预措施

患者接受封闭性敷料(即泡沫、藻酸盐、水凝胶、水胶体、水纤维或薄膜)或基于纱布的敷料,直至伤口完全愈合。

主要观察指标

主要终点为伤口完全愈合、换药时的疼痛及成本。次要终点为住院时间。

结果

封闭性敷料组(中位数66天;四分位间距[IQR],29 - 133天)与基于纱布的敷料组(中位数45天;IQR,26 - 106天;对数秩检验P = 0.31)在伤口完全愈合时间上无显著差异。使用纱布敷料时,术后伤口(占所纳入伤口的62%)愈合显著更快(P = 0.02)(中位数45天;IQR,22 - 93天对比中位数72天;IQR,36 - 132天)。封闭性敷料组(0.90;IQR,0.29 - 2.34)与纱布敷料组(0.64;IQR,0.22 - 1.95)的中位数疼痛评分较低且相似(P = 0.32)。封闭性材料的每日成本显著更高(封闭性敷料,6.34欧元[9.95美元]对比纱布,1.85欧元[2.90美元];P < 0.001),但使用纱布时每日护理时间成本显著更高(封闭性敷料,1.28欧元[2.01美元]对比纱布,2.41欧元[3.78美元];P < 0.001)。住院期间每位患者每日局部伤口护理的总成本,封闭性敷料组为7.48欧元(11.74美元),基于纱布的敷料组为3.98欧元(6.25美元)(P = 0.002)。

结论

在临床外科环境中,封闭性、湿性环境敷料原则相较于纱布敷料,并不会使伤口愈合更快或疼痛减轻。换药频率较低带来的较低成本无法抵消封闭性材料的较高成本。试验注册 trialregister.nl 标识符:56264738。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验