综合护理干预在先天性耳前瘘管反复感染中的影响效果

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2022.13.026

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的　分析综合护理干预在先天性耳前瘘管（CPF）反复感染中的效果。方法　选择2018年3月至2020年3月期间东莞市第八人民医院耳鼻喉科收治的CPF反复感染症状患者86例，随机数字表法分为两组。对照组43例，男17例，女26例，年龄（28.08±5.81）岁，给予常规药物治疗及护理措施；观察组43例，男16例，女27例，年龄（28.84±5.73）岁，则在对照组的基础上给予综合护理干预。比较两组临床护理效果、患者的生活质量（QOL）评分及护理满意度，运用独立样本秩和检验、χ²、t检验进行比较。结果　观察组的总有效率为95.35%（41/43），明显高于对照组的74.42%（32/43），差异有统计学意义（χ²=7.340 4，P=0.001 2）。干预后观察组与对照组QOL评分均较干预前显著升高，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）；干预后观察组QOL评分为（8.71±1.39）分，明显高于对照组的（7.53±1.34）分，差异有统计学意义（t=4.791 3，P=0.004 3）；观察组创面愈合时间为（6.13±1.28）d，明显低于对照组（11.57±1.64）d，差异有统计学意义（t=5.857 4，P=0.001 6）；观察组接受手术率为86.05%（37/43），明显高于对照组的62.79%（27/43），差异有统计学意义（χ²=6.108 0，P=0.001 0）；观察组护理满意度为97.67%（42/43），显著地高于对照组的74.42%（32/43），差异有统计学意义（χ²=9.684 7，P=0.001 7）。结论　对CPF反复感染的患者进行综合护理干预能够显著提高临床疗效及QOL，有效提高患者接受手术率及护理满意度，显著降低创面愈合时间，值得临床大力推广应用。

关键词: 先天性耳前瘘管, 反复感染, 综合护理干预, 生活质量

Abstract: Objective　To analyze the effect of comprehensive nursing intervention on recurrent infection of patients with congenital preauricular fistula (CPF). Methods　From March 2018 to March 2020, 86 patients with recurrent CPF symptoms who were admitted to Department of Otolaryngology, Dongguan Eighth People's Hospital were selected, and were divided into a control group and an observation group by the random number table method, with 43 cases in each group. The control group had 17 males and 26 females who were (28.08±5.81) years old, and were given routine drug treatment and nursing measures. The observation group had 16 males and 27 females who were (28.84±5.73) years old, and were given comprehensive nursing intervention on the basis of the control group. The clinical nursing effects, scores of quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction with nursing were compared between these two groups. The independent-sample rank-sum, χ² , and t tests were applied. Results　The total effective rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group [95.35% (41/43) vs. 74.42% (32/43)], with a statistical difference (χ²=7.340 4, P=0.001 2). After the intervention, the scores of QOL in both groups were higher than those before the intervention, with statistical differences (both P<0.05); the score in the observation group was higher than that in the control group [(8.71±1.39) vs. (7.53±1.34)], with a statistical difference (t=4.791 3, P=0.004 3). The wound healing time of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group [(6.13±1.28) d vs. (11.57±1.64) d], with a statistical difference (t= 5.857 4, P=0.001 6). The acceptance rate of surgery in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group [86.05% (37/43) vs. 62.79% (27/43)], with a statistical difference (χ²=6.108 0, P=0.001 0). The satisfaction with nursing of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group [97.67% (42/43) vs. 74.42% (32/43)], with a statistical difference (χ²=9.684 7,P=0.001 7). Conclusion　Comprehensive nursing intervention for patients with recurrent infection of CPF can significantly improve the clinical efficacy, QOL, patients' acceptance rate of surgery, and satisfaction with nursing, and significantly reduce wound healing time, so it is worth being clinically generalized.

Key words: Congenital preauricular fistula, Repeated infection, Comprehensive nursing intervention, Quality of life

卢换香冼志峰肖改欢. 综合护理干预在先天性耳前瘘管反复感染中的影响效果[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(13): 1903-1907.

Lu Huanxiang, Xian Zhifeng, Xiao Gaihuan. Effect of comprehensive nursing intervention on recurrent infection of patients with congenital preauricular fistula[J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2022, 28(13): 1903-1907.

参考文献

[1] 韦明壮,罗绮宁,黄嘉韵,等.感染耳前瘘管的临床特征和手术治疗[J].中华耳科学杂志,2021,19(1):27-31.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2922.2021.01.006.
[2] Pang J, Xiong H, Liao Q, et al. The diagnosis and treatment of a variant type of auricular sinus: postauricular sinus[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2019,276(7):1961-1967. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05431-7.
[3] 马玉强,刘海霞,王勤学,等.儿童变异型耳前瘘管临床特征及手术技巧[J].中华耳科学杂志,2020,18(6):1130-1133.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2922.2020.06.025.
[4] 王志远,赵海,姜美妍,等.47例感染性先天性耳前瘘管患者分泌物细菌培养及药敏学分析[J].中华耳科学杂志,2018,16(4):543-547.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2922.2018. 04.021.
[5] 蒋远伟,蔡志福,谢冠峰,等.感染期耳前瘘管术中炎性皮肤保留的探索[J].中国当代医药,2020,27(29):137-139.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-4721.2020.29.041.
[6] 王栋,罗五根.先天性耳前瘘管的走行观察与手术治疗[J].中华耳科学杂志,2020,18(4):740-743.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-2922.2020.04.024.
[7] 田勇泉.耳鼻喉头颈外科学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2013:308.
[8] 周萍,陈金辉,黄婷.先天性耳前瘘管的研究进展[J].临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2019,33(5):474-477.DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2019.05.024.
[9] 郝春艳,刘红宇,张贵,等.不同换药方式应用于耳前瘘管感染脓肿切开术患者的临床应用效果研究[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2017,27(6):1352-1354,1362.DOI:10.11816/cn.ni.2016-162452.
[10] Mchorney CA, Johne WJ, Anastasiae R.The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)[J].Medical Care,1993,31(3):247-263.
[11] 邹国玲,李宏梅.双梭形切口术和单切口术治疗先天性耳前瘘管的效果比较[J].临床医学研究与实践,2022,7(12):82-85.DOI:10.19347/j.cnki.2096-1413.202212023.
[12] 邓海燕,高兴强,郭宇峰.双梭形切口手术治疗儿童感染期先天性耳前瘘管[J].中国耳鼻咽喉颅底外科杂志,2021,27(5):582-584.DOI:10.11798/j.issn.1007-1520. 202103215.
[13] 李祥东,刘涛,周佩瑜,等.复方多粘菌素B软膏治疗先天性耳前瘘管感染的疗效观察[J].广东医科大学学报,2021,39(5):628-630.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-4057. 2021.05.024.
[14] 朱雅颖,李辰龙,施宇轩,等.先天性耳前瘘管的诊治进展[J].中国眼耳鼻喉科杂志,2019,19(1):11-15.DOI:10.14166/j.issn.1671-2420.2019.01.006.
[15] 夏良勇.感染期耳前瘘管切除术的治疗效果观察[J].包头医学,2019,43(2):34-35.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-3507. 2019.02.017.
[16] Kim WJ, Lee YM, Kim DH, et al. Causes and prevention of revision surgery for preauricular sinus: a histopathological analysis[J]. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2019,116:199-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl. 2018.11.006.
[17] 吴勇,张利清,赫迪,等.Ⅰ期病灶清扫手术治疗先天性耳前瘘管感染的效果评价[J].中国高等医学教育,2020,35(4):135,142.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1701.2020.04.071.
[18] 岳慧娟,付红英,张永春,等.肌内效贴加压换药配合五味消毒饮治疗先天性耳前瘘管感染脓肿切开的临床研究[J].贵州中医药大学学报,2021,43(5):42-45.DOI:10.16588/j.cnki.issn2096-8426.2021.05.009.
[19] 王琨,李珍,周玉梅.综合护理在先天性耳前瘘管反复感染患者中的应用效果[J].当代护士(上旬刊),2019,26(1):86-88.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-6411.2019.01.041.