| Literature DB >> 35855798 |
Zeying Yu1, Hengsheng Shu1, Xia An1, Bowen Shi1, Junming Zhao1.
Abstract
In the medical domain, needle-track nursing especially after 2 percent chlorhexidine gluconate gauze pressure bandaging is a challenging issue and needs a timely response from the research community. In this research paper, a total of 213 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria after external fixation with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate gauze pressure bandaging in the second orthopaedic ward from March 2018 to December 2017 were selected and randomly divided into three groups, each with 71 cases. For needle tract care, various intervention strategies are used. Gauze pressure bandage with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate is in Group A. In group B, BID was cleaned with a sterile cotton swab containing 2 percent chlorohexanol gluconate. BID uses a 75 percent alcohol sterile cotton swab wipe for basic needle maintenance. The intervention measures suggested by each group were provided to the three groups. Finally, the effects and differences of the intervention measures used by the three groups on the infection rate of the needle tract after external fixation and patient pain scores were examined. It is worth noting that chlorhexidine disinfectant has not only evident and quick germicidal effects but also long-term bacteriostatic efficiency against germs that are difficult to develop drug resistance to. The nursing technique of chlorhexidine pressure bandaging the needle tract minimises the risk of infection, particularly severe needle tract infection. The compression bandage group had a considerably lower rate of needle tract infection than the other two groups (P0.05), according to the statistics. The pain score in the pressure bandaging group was significantly lower than the other two groups after intervention (P0.05), notably in the typical alcohol disinfection group. The use of 2 percent chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol gauze pressure dressing nursing measures can minimise the rate of needle tract infection following external fixator surgery, as well as the pain and satisfaction of patients. The needle tract nursing technique offers clinical and promotional value.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35855798 PMCID: PMC9288323 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6299435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
The basic information for two groups.
| Group | Gender | Age | Number of selected holes | Cause of injury | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Bruises | Smashing injury | Car accident | |||
| A | 36 | 35 | 48.7 ± 13.067 | 18.01 ± 4.281 | 27 | 19 | 25 |
| B | 37 | 34 | 47.66 ± 15.339 | 18.15 ± 5.019 | 26 | 20 | 26 |
| C | 37 | 34 | 47.8 ± 16.278 | 19.25 ± 5.590 | 22 | 18 | 31 |
The P value of basic information in each group was more than 0.05, and there was no difference in basic information among patients in each group.
Figure 1External fixation surgery.
Figure 2Place the outer retainer.
Figure 3Pressure plug fixing.
Figure 4Closed pressure bandage.
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7Three methods of nursing needle tract infection results.
| Project | Number ofpatients ( | Number ofselected holes ( | Number ofnegative holes ( | Number of infected holes ( | Painscore | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I degree | II degree | III degree | IV degree | Total | |||||
| 4 days after operation | |||||||||
| A | 71 | 1279 | 1135 | 134 (10.48) | 10 (0.78) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 144 (11.26) | 2.31 ± 1.103 |
| B | 71 | 1289 | 1100 | 167 (12.96) | 22 (1.71) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 189 (14.66) | 2.73 ± 1.195 |
| C | 71 | 1367 | 1152 | 194 (14.19) | 21 (1.54) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 215 (15.73) | 2.87 ± 1.206 |
|
| |||||||||
| One month after operation | |||||||||
| A | 71 | 1279 | 1193 | 73 (5.71) | 13 (1.02) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 86 (6.72) | 1.06 ± 1.308 |
| B | 71 | 1289 | 1163 | 106 (8.22) | 19 (1.47) | 1 (0.08) | 0 (0) | 126 (9.78) | 1.27 ± 1.082 |
| C | 71 | 1367 | 1223 | 120 (8.78) | 22 (1.61) | 2 (0.15) | 0 (0) | 144 (10.53) | 1.52 ± 1.169 |
|
| |||||||||
| 3 months after operation | |||||||||
| A | 71 | 1279 | 1245 | 32 (2.50) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.16) | 0 (0) | 34 (2.66) | 0.366 ± 0.7018 |
| B | 71 | 1289 | 1233 | 49 (3.80) | 7 (0.54) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 56 (4.34) | 0.592 ± 0.7852 |
| C | 71 | 1367 | 1277 | 74 (5.41) | 16 (1.17) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 90 (6.58) | 0.915 ± 0.9063 |
|
| |||||||||
| 6 months after operation | |||||||||
| A | 70 | 1256 | 1240 | 13 (1.04) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (0.24) | 16 (1.27) | 0.1 ± 0.302 |
| B | 70 | 1274 | 1234 | 40 (3.14) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 40 (3.114) | 0.34 ± 0.611 |
| C | 69 | 1337 | 1272 | 63 (4.71) | 1 (0.07) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.07) | 65 (4.86) | 0.59 ± 0.734 |
|
| |||||||||
| When the outer frame is removed | |||||||||
| A | 69 | 1241 | 1232 | 9 (0.73) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (0.73) | 0.072 ± 0.2612 |
| B | 70 | 1274 | 1234 | 40 (3.14) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 40 (3.14) | 0.257 ± 0.472 |
| C | 69 | 1337 | 1274 | 60 (4.49) | 3 (0.22) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 63 (4.71) | 0.391 ± 0.5744 |
Statistical data of pairwise comparison of three groups of data.
| Comparisonof AB group | Comparisonof AC group | Comparisonof BC group | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Time | Needle tract infection | Pain | Time | Needle tract infection | Pain | Time | Needle tract infection | Pain | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 4 days after operation | 6.590 | 0.010 | −2.189 | 0.030 | 4 days after operation | 11.254 | 0.001 | −2.904 | 0.004 | 4 days after operation | 0.584 | 0.445 | −0.699 | 0.486 |
| One month after operation | 7.890 | 0.005 | −1.049 | 0.218 | One month after operation | 12.085 | 0.001 | −2.232 | 0.600 | One month after operation | 0.418 | 0.518 | −1.341 | 0.409 |
| 3 months after operation | 5.397 | 0.020 | −1.803 | 0.074 | 3 months after operation | 22.795 | <0.001 | −4.038 | <0.001 | 3 months after operation | 6.404 | 0.011 | −2.276 | 0.024 |
| 6 months after operation | 10.173 | 0.001 | −2.98 | 0.003 | 6 months after operation | 27.546 | <0.001 | −5.204 | <0.001 | 6 months after operation | 5.011 | 0.025 | −2.195 | 0.030 |
| When removing the outer frame | 19.184 | <0.001 | −2.849 | 0.005 | When removing the outer frame | 37.681 | <0.001 | −4.197 | <0.001 | When removing the outer frame | 4.256 | 0.039 | −1.505 | 0.135 |
When P < 0.05, it is meaningful; the greater the value of χ2, the greater the difference.