[1]崔振英 后群.小切口负压引流技术治疗颌面颈部感染的临床观察[J].中国实用乡村医生杂志,2020,27(06):68-71.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-7185.2020.06.021 ]
 CUI Zhenying,HOU Qun.Clinical Observation of Small Incision Negative Pressure Drainage Technique in the Treatment of Maxillofacial Neck Infection[J].Chinese Practical Journal of Rural Doctor,2020,27(06):68-71.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-7185.2020.06.021 ]
点击复制

小切口负压引流技术治疗颌面颈部感染的临床观察()
分享到:

《中国实用乡村医生杂志》[ISSN:1672-7185/CN:21-1502/R]

卷:
27
期数:
2020年06期
页码:
68-71
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2020-06-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Clinical Observation of Small Incision Negative Pressure Drainage Technique in the Treatment of Maxillofacial Neck Infection
文章编号:
 1672-7185(2020)06-0068-04 
作者:
崔振英 后群
作者单位:661000 云南 个旧,云南省红河州第三人民医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科
Author(s):
CUI Zhenying HOU Qun
(Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Third People’s Hospital of Honghe, Gejiu 661000, Yunnan Province, China)
关键词:
 小切口负压引流技术颌面颈部感染
Keywords:
 Small Incision Negative Pressure Drainage Technology Mandibular Neck Infection
分类号:
 R782.3 
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-7185.2020.06.021
文献标志码:
 A
摘要:
 目的 观察小切口负压引流技术治疗颌面颈部感染的临床效果。方法 选取2016年1月—2018年1月在红河州第三人民医院治疗的50例颌面颈部感染患者,按照患者意愿分两组进行治疗,对照组采取常规切口引流术进行治疗,观察组采用小切口负压引流技术进行治疗。比较两组的手术治疗效果、术前、术后白细胞( W B C )和C反应蛋白( C R P)水平、瘢痕长度、拔管时间、并发症等指标。结果 两组临床有效率比较差异无统计学意义 (P>0.05);两组术前W BC、C RP水平差异无统计学意义( P>0.05),术后查两组W BC、C RP水平较术前均有降低,差异有统计学意义( P<0.05),且观察组术后W BC、C RP水平低于对照组( P<0.05);观察组瘢痕长度、拔管时间均少于对照组( P<0.05)。观察组患者术后并发症发生率低于对照组,但组间比较差异无统计学意义 (P>0.05)。结论 小切口负压引流技术治疗颌面颈部感染临床有效率与常规切口引流术基本相当,但术后恢复更快、美观效果更好。
Abstract:
 Objective To observe the clinical effect of small incision negative pressure drainage in the treatment of maxillofacial and neck infection. Methods From January 2016 to January 2018, a total of 50 patients with maxillofacial and neck infection were treated in the third people’s Hospital of Honghe Prefecture. They were divided into two groups according to the patients’ wishes. The control group was treated with conventional incision drainage, and the observation group was treated with small incision negative pressure drainage. The therapeutic effect, the level of WBC and CRP, the length of scar, the time of extubation and complications were compared between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in clinical effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in WBC and CRP levels between the two groups before operation (P>0.05), but WBC and CRP levels after operation in both groups were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05), and the WBC and CRPlevels in the observation group were significantly lower than control group (P<0.05). The scar length and extubation time of the observation group were significantly less than those of the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The clinical effective rate of small incision negative pressure drainage is almost the same as that of conventional incision drainage, but the postoperative recovery is faster and the aesthetic effect is better.

参考文献/References:

[1] 俞丹,陈舜岳,王姝.闭式冲洗留置负压引流口腔颌面部间隙感染的临床研究[ J ].中国现代医生,2014,52(4):108-110.
[2] 董青山,郭家平,李志进,等.颌面颈部深部化脓性感染的微创负压引流方法研究[ J].临床口腔医学杂志,2014,15(9):554-556.
[3] 李海峰,赵福路,石东恒,等.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.
[4] 易辉,胡方育.闭式冲洗留置负压引流对口腔颌面部间隙感染患者疼痛程度及脓肿大小的影响[J].检验医学与临床,2017,14(6):863-865.
[5] 李春梅,解晨露,胡爽,等.封闭负压引流技术治疗口腔颌面间隙感染的临床应用[ J].华西口腔医学杂志,2019,37(1):62-65.
[6] 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.
[7] 许炜.微创切口+负压引流治疗颌面部间隙感染的临床应用[J].中国农村卫生,2019,11(14):32.
[8]吕光.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[J].世界复合医学,2019,5(4):7-9.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2019-08-28)

更新日期/Last Update: 2020-07-08