Comparison Of Different Dressings Prevention And Treatment Of Pressure Sore Ⅰ

ObjectiveTo compare whether differences exist between Comfeel transparent dressing and Biatain adhesive dressings in the pressure ulcer prevention and treatment of stage I pressure ulcers(PU). At the same time, to compare whether expenditure differences exist between Comfeel transparent dressing and Biatain adhesive dressings in the PU prevention and treatment of stage I PU. To seek more convenient, effective and economic dressings for PU prevention and treatment of stage I PU. To provides a certain basis for the clinical application.MethodsA prospective randomized study was conducted on67patients at high risk of pressure ulcer which was divided into two groups as transparent dressings and adhesive dressings. Observe the patients’skin once every24h, when the skin occure PU, record the time. At the same time, observe wether the patients occure skin allergy when useing dressing, record the frequency of changing the dressing and the time.34patients with stage I PU on admission or occurred during the hospitalization was also divided into the two groups by random sampling. Observe the patients’skin once every24h and record each patient treatment outcomes, including fine, improvement and invalid.Also observe wether the patients occure skin allergy when useing dressing, record the frequency of changing the dressing and the time. All data was processed by SPSS17.0statistical software.ResultsThe incidence of pressure ulcers on the sacrum, was2.86%(1/35) in the transparent dressings group and3.31%(1/32) in the adhesive dressings group (P=1.000, P>0.05),there were no statistical differences. However for the treatment of stage I PU,17patients in the transparent dressings group, compete healing in11cases (64.71%), improvement in4cases (23.53%) and inefficacy in2cases (11.76%).17patients in the adhesive dressings group, compete healing in5cases (29.42%), improvement in6cases (35.29%) and inefficacy in6cases (35.29%), comparison of the differences:Z=—2.119, P=0.034,P<0.05, the difference was statistically significant. The52patients application of Comfeel transparent dressing for PU prevention and treatment of PU have no skin allergy phenomenon; the32patients application of Biatain adhesive dressings for PU prevention have two cases appearred skin allergy phenomenon, the17 patients of stage I PU treatment group have no skin allergy phenomenon.the difference was not statistically significant. The average cost is (92.81±39.33) yuan of54patients in the PU prevention and treatment group with Comfeel transparent dressing. And the average cost is (132.97±36.09) yuan of49patients in the PU prevention and treatment group with Biatain adhesive dressings. The average cost of Comfeel transparent dressing is lower than the Biatain adhesive dressings in the PU prevention and stage I PU treatment, the difference was statistically significant.ConclusionThe effect for prevention of PU is similar between the two dressings. However, the transparent dressings is better than the adhesive dressing on the treatment of stage I PU. Both of the two dressing for pressure ulcers prevention and treatment of stage I PU have the high security. The average cost of PU prevention and stage I PU treatment with Comfeel transparent dressing is relatively lower because its transparency and avoiding repeated uncover.