微创切口联合负压引流治疗颌面部间隙感染患者临床效果及预后分析
|
摘要
目的观察颌面部间隙感染患者应用微创切口与负压引流联合治疗的效果及预后。方法临床资料采集该院口腔科于2016年12月—2018年12月诊治的108例颌面部间隙感染患者,按不同治疗方案分两组,54例每组,对照组行传统切开引流术治疗,观察组行微创切口与负压引流联合治疗,比较两组疗效、临床指标及并发症。结果观察组治疗总有效率94.44%相较于对照组81.48%更高(χ~2=4.285 0,P<0.05);观察组引流量(70.51±2.83)mL相较对照组少,瘢痕长度(2.31±0.33)cm、瘢痕宽度(0.43±0.02)cm、创面愈合时间(7.23±1.16)d均相较于对照组短(P<0.05,t=9.743 4,t=24.688 0,t=28.297 9,t=16.467 9);观察组并发症几率5.56%相较于对照组20.37%低(χ~2=5.252 3,P<0.05)。结论微创切口与负压引流联合用于颌面部间隙感染治疗的效果显著,能提高疗效,加快创面愈合,瘢痕小,并降低并发症几率,预后良好。
Objective To observe the effect and prognosis of minimally invasive incision combined with negative pressure drainage in patients with maxillofacial infection. Methods Clinical data were collected from 108 patients with maxillofacial space infection diag-nosed in our hospital from December 2016 to December 2018. According to different treatment options, these patients were divided into 2 groups with 54 cases each. The control group underwent traditional incision and drainage treatment, the observation group un-derwent minimally invasive incision combined with negative pressure drainage, comparing the efficacy, clinical indicators and compli-cations of the two groups. Results The total effective rate of observation group was 94.44% higher than that of the control group(81.48%)( χ~2=4.285 0,P<0.05). The drainage volume of the observation group(70.51±2.83)mL was less than that of the control group,and the scar length was 2.31±0.33 cm. The width of scar width(0.43±0.02) cm, wound healing time(7.23±1.16) d was shorter than that of the control group(t=9.743 4, t=24.688 0, t=28.297 9, t=16.467 9,P<0.05); The incidence of complications in the observation group was 5.56% compared with 20.37% in the control group(χ~2=5.252 3,P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of minimally invasive incision and negative pressure drainage for the treatment of maxillofacial space infection has a significant effect, which can improve the curative effect, accelerate wound healing, reduce scar, reduce the chance of complications and prognosis.
Objective To observe the effect and prognosis of minimally invasive incision combined with negative pressure drainage in patients with maxillofacial infection. Methods Clinical data were collected from 108 patients with maxillofacial space infection diag-nosed in our hospital from December 2016 to December 2018. According to different treatment options, these patients were divided into 2 groups with 54 cases each. The control group underwent traditional incision and drainage treatment, the observation group un-derwent minimally invasive incision combined with negative pressure drainage, comparing the efficacy, clinical indicators and compli-cations of the two groups. Results The total effective rate of observation group was 94.44% higher than that of the control group(81.48%)( χ~2=4.285 0,P<0.05). The drainage volume of the observation group(70.51±2.83)mL was less than that of the control group,and the scar length was 2.31±0.33 cm. The width of scar width(0.43±0.02) cm, wound healing time(7.23±1.16) d was shorter than that of the control group(t=9.743 4, t=24.688 0, t=28.297 9, t=16.467 9,P<0.05); The incidence of complications in the observation group was 5.56% compared with 20.37% in the control group(χ~2=5.252 3,P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of minimally invasive incision and negative pressure drainage for the treatment of maxillofacial space infection has a significant effect, which can improve the curative effect, accelerate wound healing, reduce scar, reduce the chance of complications and prognosis.
引文
[1]李海峰.不同抗菌药物超声引导冲洗治疗颌面部间隙感染效果对比[J].中国医学工程,2018,26(6):91-93.
[2]周容.颌面部间隙感染者病因、临床表现及综合治疗[J].中华实验和临床感染病杂志,2018,12(5):509-513.
[3]周璐芳.应用VSD引流技术治疗口腔颌面部颈部间隙感染的疗效分析[J].浙江创伤外科,2017,22(6):1091-1092.
[4]邱蔚六.口腔颌面外科学[M].北京:人民卫生出版,2008:1-616.
[5]刘福来,赵明莉.颌面部间隙感染治疗中负压引流与微创切口联合应用的效果[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(24):10-12.
[6]谢远鸿.改良负压封闭引流术辅助治疗口腔颌面部间隙感染的效果[J].中国当代医药,2017,24(13):121-123.
[7]赵全刚,梁丹,路明.颌面部间隙感染微创切口负压引流的临床治疗研究[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2015,25(1):210-212.
[8]张兆弢,张风河.负压封闭引流技术在儿童口腔颌面部间隙感染中的应用效果评价[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2019,17(1):62-65.
[9]王郸,张桂荣.微创切口负压引流在颌面部间隙感染治疗中的应用价值[J].中国现代药物应用,2015,9(1):44-45.
[10]蒋建平,高炳菊,邱宇,等.负压封闭引流辅助冲洗技术在38例口腔颌面颈部重症多间隙感染中的应用效果评价[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2018,16(4):352-356.
[11]李海峰,赵福路,石东恒.双管负压引流治疗口腔颌面部多间隙感染疗效与安全性分析[J].淮海医药,2017,35(3):297-298.
[12]Sereflican M,Yurttas V,Erdem F.The effect of septoplasty operation for nasal septum deviation to cardiovascular risk reduction[J].Journal of Craniofacial Surgery,2015,26(3):964.
[13]Koch M,Jalyzada K,Grundtner P,et al.Treatment of the donor site of free radial flaps:vacuum sealing versus conventional wound care[J].Acta Oto-Laryngologica,2017:1-6.
[14]刘勤.微创切口负压引流在颌面部间隙感染治疗中的应用[J].临床医学研究与实践,2016,1(24):42-43,45.
[2]周容.颌面部间隙感染者病因、临床表现及综合治疗[J].中华实验和临床感染病杂志,2018,12(5):509-513.
[3]周璐芳.应用VSD引流技术治疗口腔颌面部颈部间隙感染的疗效分析[J].浙江创伤外科,2017,22(6):1091-1092.
[4]邱蔚六.口腔颌面外科学[M].北京:人民卫生出版,2008:1-616.
[5]刘福来,赵明莉.颌面部间隙感染治疗中负压引流与微创切口联合应用的效果[J].临床医学研究与实践,2018,3(24):10-12.
[6]谢远鸿.改良负压封闭引流术辅助治疗口腔颌面部间隙感染的效果[J].中国当代医药,2017,24(13):121-123.
[7]赵全刚,梁丹,路明.颌面部间隙感染微创切口负压引流的临床治疗研究[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2015,25(1):210-212.
[8]张兆弢,张风河.负压封闭引流技术在儿童口腔颌面部间隙感染中的应用效果评价[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2019,17(1):62-65.
[9]王郸,张桂荣.微创切口负压引流在颌面部间隙感染治疗中的应用价值[J].中国现代药物应用,2015,9(1):44-45.
[10]蒋建平,高炳菊,邱宇,等.负压封闭引流辅助冲洗技术在38例口腔颌面颈部重症多间隙感染中的应用效果评价[J].中国口腔颌面外科杂志,2018,16(4):352-356.
[11]李海峰,赵福路,石东恒.双管负压引流治疗口腔颌面部多间隙感染疗效与安全性分析[J].淮海医药,2017,35(3):297-298.
[12]Sereflican M,Yurttas V,Erdem F.The effect of septoplasty operation for nasal septum deviation to cardiovascular risk reduction[J].Journal of Craniofacial Surgery,2015,26(3):964.
[13]Koch M,Jalyzada K,Grundtner P,et al.Treatment of the donor site of free radial flaps:vacuum sealing versus conventional wound care[J].Acta Oto-Laryngologica,2017:1-6.
[14]刘勤.微创切口负压引流在颌面部间隙感染治疗中的应用[J].临床医学研究与实践,2016,1(24):42-43,45.