• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[与传统治疗相比,潮湿环境治疗的有效性和成本比较。对患有下肢静脉溃疡和压疮的初级护理患者的临床试验]

[Comparison of the effectiveness and cost of treatment with humid environment as compared to traditional cure. Clinical trial on primary care patients with venous leg ulcers and pressure ulcers].

作者信息

Capillas Pérez R, Cabré Aguilar V, Gil Colomé A M, Gaitano García A, Torra i Bou J E

机构信息

ABS Sant Josep, ICS, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.

出版信息

Rev Enferm. 2000 Jan;23(1):17-24.

PMID:10788945
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

COMMENTS

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.

摘要

引言

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。

主要结果

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。

评论

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。

相似文献

1
[Comparison of the effectiveness and cost of treatment with humid environment as compared to traditional cure. Clinical trial on primary care patients with venous leg ulcers and pressure ulcers].[与传统治疗相比,潮湿环境治疗的有效性和成本比较。对患有下肢静脉溃疡和压疮的初级护理患者的临床试验]
Rev Enferm. 2000 Jan;23(1):17-24.
2
Pressure ulcers--randomised controlled trial comparing hydrocolloid and saline gauze dressings.压疮——比较水胶体敷料和盐水纱布敷料的随机对照试验
Med J Malaysia. 1998 Dec;53(4):428-31.
3
Occlusive vs gauze dressings for local wound care in surgical patients: a randomized clinical trial.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。
Arch Surg. 2008 Oct;143(10):950-5. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.10.950.
4
[Collagen powder dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcer. Multicenter comparative study assessing effectiveness and cost].[胶原蛋白粉敷料治疗压疮。评估有效性和成本的多中心比较研究]
Rev Enferm. 2002 Sep;25(9):50-7.
5
Cost-effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy for postsurgical patients in long-term acute care.负压伤口治疗对长期急性护理中术后患者的成本效益
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009 Mar;22(3):122-7. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000305452.79434.d9.
6
[Management of venous leg ulcer by French physicians, diversity and related costs: a prospective medicoeconomic observational study].[法国医生对下肢静脉溃疡的管理、多样性及相关成本:一项前瞻性医学经济学观察性研究]
J Mal Vasc. 2001 Feb;26(1):39-44.
7
A prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of a modern foam dressing versus a traditional saline gauze dressing in the treatment of stage II pressure ulcers.一项前瞻性随机临床试验,旨在评估现代泡沫敷料与传统盐水纱布敷料在治疗II期压疮方面的成本效益。
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009 Feb;55(2):50-5.
8
Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary wound care in nursing homes: a pseudo-randomized pragmatic cluster trial.养老院多学科伤口护理的成本效益:一项伪随机实用聚类试验。
Fam Pract. 2007 Sep;24(4):372-9. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm024. Epub 2007 Jun 29.
9
["Auriga-04" study on the use of a range of Allevyn hydro-cellular dressings in the treatment of bed sores and leg ulcers by primary health care professionals].["Auriga - 04"研究:初级医疗保健专业人员使用一系列爱立敷水胶体敷料治疗褥疮和腿部溃疡]
Rev Enferm. 2006 Apr;29(4):43-9.
10
The clinical and cost effectiveness of externally applied negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of wounds in home healthcare Medicare patients.家庭医疗保健医疗保险患者伤口治疗中外用负压伤口疗法的临床及成本效益
Ostomy Wound Manage. 1999 Nov;45(11):41-50.

引用本文的文献

1
Hydrogel dressings for venous leg ulcers.水凝胶敷料治疗静脉性下肢溃疡。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Aug 5;8(8):CD010738. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010738.pub2.
2
Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.用于治疗压疮的敷料和外用剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 22;6(6):CD011947. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011947.pub2.
3
Alginate dressings for venous leg ulcers.用于下肢静脉性溃疡的藻酸盐敷料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 19;2015(8):CD010182. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010182.pub3.
4
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers.用于治疗压疮的藻酸盐敷料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 21;2015(5):CD011277. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011277.pub2.
5
Hydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers.用于治疗压疮的水凝胶敷料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 17;2015(2):CD011226. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011226.pub2.
6
Foam dressings for venous leg ulcers.用于腿部静脉溃疡的泡沫敷料。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD009907. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009907.pub2.