Wikblad K, Anderson B
Center for Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Nurs Res. 1995 Sep-Oct;44(5):312-6. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199509000-00009.
Two hundred fifty patients undergoing heart surgery were randomized in a prospective comparative study of a semiocclusive hydroactive wound dressing, an occlusive hydrocolloid dressing, and a conventional absorbent dressing. The wounds were evaluated during the 4 weeks after surgery. Color photographs were used for a blind evaluation of wound healing. The conventional absorbent dressing was more effective in wound healing, compared with the hydroactive dressing. Further, there were fewer skin changes and less redness in the wounds with the conventional dressing than with the hydroactive dressing; the differences were not significant with the hydrocolloid dressing. The conventional dressing was less painful to remove than the hydroactive and hydrocolloid dressings. More frequent dressing changes, however, were needed when using the conventional dressing. Despite this, it was the least expensive alternative.
在一项前瞻性对比研究中，250名接受心脏手术的患者被随机分配使用半封闭水活性伤口敷料、封闭性水胶体敷料和传统吸水性敷料。术后4周内对伤口进行评估。使用彩色照片对伤口愈合情况进行盲法评估。与水活性敷料相比，传统吸水性敷料在伤口愈合方面更有效。此外，使用传统敷料的伤口皮肤变化更少，发红情况也比水活性敷料少；与水胶体敷料相比，差异不显著。传统敷料去除时的疼痛感比水活性敷料和水胶体敷料轻。然而，使用传统敷料时需要更频繁地更换敷料。尽管如此，它是最便宜的选择。
