论文部分内容阅读
目的:探索研究复方溶葡萄球菌酶与湿润烧伤膏对Ⅱ度烧伤的临床疗效。方法:选取中山市南区医院2012年3月至2016年9月收治的80例Ⅱ度烧伤患者进行临床对比分析,将患者随机分为观察组和对照组,其中观察组患者40例采用复方溶葡萄球菌酶,对照组患者40例采用湿润烧伤膏进行治疗,对两组患者治疗效果进行对比。结果:两组药物缓解烧伤创面疼痛对比,湿润烧伤膏优于百克瑞;两种药物预防烧伤创面感染对比,百克瑞优于湿润烧伤膏;两组药物烧伤创面愈合时间对比,百克瑞与湿润烧伤膏差异不明显;两组药物烧伤创面瘢痕情况对比,百克瑞与湿润烧伤膏差异不明显。结论:在Ⅱ度烧伤中,湿润烧伤膏对缓解烧伤创面疼痛效果优于复方溶葡萄球菌酶消毒喷剂,复方溶葡萄球菌消毒喷剂对预防烧伤创面感染效果优于湿润烧伤膏。复方溶葡萄球菌酶消毒喷剂可直接喷于烧伤创面,操作方便,与烧伤创面不直接接触,减轻了换药疼痛、换药时间及对烧伤创面新生上皮的破坏;复方溶葡萄球菌酶消毒喷剂呈无色透明状,可以更直观观察烧伤创面愈合进展。
Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy of compound lysostaphin and MEBO in treating degree Ⅱ burn. Methods: A total of 80 patients with grade Ⅱ burn who were admitted to Zhongshan Nanfang Hospital from March 2012 to September 2016 were selected for clinical comparative analysis. The patients were randomly divided into observation group and control group. Forty patients in observation group were treated with compound Staphylococcal enzyme, control group of 40 patients treated with MEBO, the treatment effect of two groups were compared. Results: The two groups of drugs relieve the pain of burn wounds, compared with MEBO, MEBO is better than MEBO in preventing burn wound infection, the best one is better than MEBO in wound burn wound healing time, There was no significant difference between the two groups in the wounds of burn wounds. The difference between the two groups was not obvious. Conclusion: In the second-degree burn, MEBO is superior to compound lysostaphole disinfectant in relieving burn wound pain. The effect of compound Staphylococcus aureus disinfectant spray on preventing burn wound infection is better than that of MEBO. Compound lysostaphin disinfectant spray can be sprayed directly on the burn wound, easy to operate, and burn wounds are not in direct contact, reducing the dressing pain, dressing time and damage to the wound surface of newborn epithelial damage; compound lysostaphin disinfection spray The agent is colorless and transparent, you can more directly observe the progress of burn wound healing.