Capillas Pérez R, Cabré Aguilar V, Gil Colomé A M, Gaitano García A, Torra i Bou J E
ABS Sant Josep, ICS, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.
Rev Enferm. 2000 Jan;23(1):17-24.
The discovery of moist environment dressings as alternatives to the traditional treatments based on exposing wounds to air, opened new expectations for the care and treatment of chronic wounds. Over the years, these expectations have led to the availability of new moist environment dressings which have made it possible to improve the care provided to patients suffering this kind of wounds, as well as providing important reasons to weigh in terms of cost-benefit-effectiveness at the time of selecting which type of treatment should be employed. The lack of comparative analysis among traditional treatments and moist environment treatments for chronic wounds among patients receiving primary health care led the authors to perform an analysis comparing these aforementioned options of treatment on patients suffering venous leg ulcers or pressure ulcers.
PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors designed a Randomized Clinical Trial involving patients receiving ambulatory care in order to compare the effectiveness and cost-benefit of traditional versus moist environment dressing during the treatment of patients suffering stage II or III pressure ulcers or venous leg ulcers. In this trial, variables related to effectiveness of both treatments, as well as their costs were analyzed.
70 wounds were included in this Randomized Clinical Trial, 41 were venous leg ulcers of which 21 received a moist environment treatment while 20 received traditional cure, the other 29 wounds were pressure ulcers of which 15 received moist environment dressings treatment and 14 received traditional dressings. No statistically significant differences were found among the defining variables for these lesions in either group under treatment. In the venous leg ulcer study group, the authors conclusions were an average of 18.13 days, 16.33 treatment sessions and a cost of 10,616 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with traditional treatment compared to an average of 18.22 days, 4.54 treatment sessions and a cost of 2409 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with moist environment dressings. In the pressure ulcers study group, the authors conclusions were an average of 12.18 days, 12.1 treatment sessions and a cost of 15,490 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with traditional treatment compared to an average of 7.12 days, 1.86 treatment sessions and a cost of 2610 pesetas to heal one square centimeter of the initial surface area of a wound on patients treated with moist environment dressings.
The results of this randomized clinical trial demosntrated that the moist environment treatment group was more effective and had a better cost-benefit ratio than the traditional treatment group in the treatment of pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers on patients cared for by nursing personnel in primary health care centers all of which agrees with publications consulted by authors.
湿性环境敷料的发现,作为传统伤口暴露于空气中治疗方法的替代方案,为慢性伤口的护理和治疗带来了新的期望。多年来,这些期望促使新型湿性环境敷料问世,这使得改善此类伤口患者的护理成为可能,同时在选择采用何种治疗方式时,也为权衡成本效益提供了重要依据。在接受初级卫生保健的患者中,缺乏对慢性伤口传统治疗与湿性环境治疗的比较分析,促使作者对患有下肢静脉溃疡或压疮的患者进行这两种上述治疗方案的比较分析。
患者、材料与方法:作者设计了一项随机临床试验,纳入接受门诊护理的患者,以比较传统敷料与湿性环境敷料在治疗II期或III期压疮或下肢静脉溃疡患者时的有效性和成本效益。在该试验中,分析了与两种治疗有效性相关的变量及其成本。
该随机临床试验纳入了70处伤口,其中41处为下肢静脉溃疡,21处接受湿性环境治疗,20处接受传统治疗;另外29处伤口为压疮,15处接受湿性环境敷料治疗,14处接受传统敷料治疗。在治疗中的任何一组中,这些损伤的定义变量之间均未发现统计学上的显著差异。在下肢静脉溃疡研究组中,作者得出的结论是,采用传统治疗的患者愈合一平方厘米伤口初始表面积平均需要18.13天、16.33次治疗疗程,费用为10616比塞塔;相比之下,采用湿性环境敷料治疗的患者愈合一平方厘米伤口初始表面积平均需要18.22天、4.54次治疗疗程,费用为2409比塞塔。在压疮研究组中,作者得出的结论是,采用传统治疗的患者愈合一平方厘米伤口初始表面积平均需要12.18天、12.1次治疗疗程,费用为15490比塞塔;相比之下,采用湿性环境敷料治疗的患者愈合一平方厘米伤口初始表面积平均需要7.12天、1.86次治疗疗程,费用为2610比塞塔。
这项随机临床试验的结果表明,在初级卫生保健中心由护理人员护理的患者中,湿性环境治疗组在治疗压疮和下肢静脉溃疡方面比传统治疗组更有效,且成本效益更高,这与作者查阅的文献一致。