Hutchinson J J, McGuckin M
Wound Research Laboratory, Convatec, UK.
Am J Infect Control. 1990 Aug;18(4):257-68. doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(90)90167-q.
This review discusses the microbiology of normal skin and wounds and examines the rates of infection reported under both conventional (nonocclusive) dressings and all occlusive dressings, together with cost factors. The overall infection rate under conventional dressings was 7.1% in 1085 wounds, whereas under occlusive dressings on 3047 wounds the rate was 2.6%. In studies in which the two dressing types were directly compared, the respective rates were 7.6% and 3.2%. The reasons for this difference may include both dressing-specific and host-specific factors, and these factors are discussed.
本综述讨论了正常皮肤和伤口的微生物学，并研究了传统（非封闭性）敷料和所有封闭性敷料下报告的感染率，以及成本因素。1085例伤口使用传统敷料时的总体感染率为7.1%，而3047例伤口使用封闭性敷料时的感染率为2.6%。在直接比较两种敷料类型的研究中，各自的感染率分别为7.6%和3.2%。这种差异的原因可能包括敷料特异性和宿主特异性因素，本文将对这些因素进行讨论。
