目的 应用不同冲洗液对慢性创面上应用的封闭负压吸引装置进行冲洗,对比两种冲洗方法的优劣,为临床应用提供参考。方法 对比两组冲洗液冲洗后创面肉芽组织生长情况,疼痛度,堵管率,住院天数,细菌培养及药敏试验结果等情况。结果 呋喃西林组对比于生理盐水组能更好的促进肉芽组织生长[(9.41±1.12) vs (7.76±0.67)],能缩短患者平均住院日[(29.44±1.88) vs (32.79±1.74)]d,但是对于减轻疼痛度、降低堵管率方面两者效果相当(P＞0.01)。同时细菌培养显示创面感染以革兰阴性菌为主,呋喃西林组细菌检出率低于生理盐水组(62.5% vs 82.5%);呋喃西林组部分细菌对呋喃西林产生耐药性,而生理盐水组这种情况较之少见(68% vs 36.36%)。结论 ①呋喃西林冲洗在促进肉芽组织生长,缩短平均住院日方面优于生理盐水组。②两种方法均能有效防止引流管的堵塞情况。③呋喃西林冲洗可降低细菌检出率,但能使部分细菌产生对呋喃西林的耐药性。

Objective: To compare the effects of two different liquid in negative pressure wound therapy for chronic wounds, provide the reference for clinical application. Methods: The growth of granulation tissue, pain degree, plugging rate, average hospitalization days, bacterial culture and drug sensitivity test results were compared after the two liquid was used. Results: Nitrofural group compared with the saline group can promote the growth of granulation tissue[(9.41±1.12) vs (7.76±0.67)], shorten the average days of hospitalization[(29.44±1.88) vs (32.79±1.74)]; but for the relief of pain degree and the plugging rate, the effects was similar(P＞0.01, the difference was not significant). At the same time, bacterial test showed that there were almost gram-negative bacteria, bacteria detection rate (62.5%) in Nitrofural group was less than that in the saline group (82.5%); Nitrofural group has more nitrofurazone resistant bacteria(68%), and the saline group performs not the same(36.36%). Conclusion: ① Furacilin irrigation could promote the growth of granulation tissue, shorten the average hospitalization days. ②The two methods can effectively prevent the blockage of the drainage tube. ② Furacilin irrigation can reduce the detection rate of bacteria, but cannot prevent the resistance of nitrofurazone.