臭氧、臭氧水对感染性创面修复作用的分子生物学研究

摘要

目的：运用分子生物学的方法探讨臭氧水和臭氧对创面愈合的疗效。方法40只Vista大鼠感染性创面造模成功后按换药方式的不同随机分为四组：洗必泰治疗组、臭氧组、臭氧水组、对照组，每组各10只；换药9 d后评价四组大鼠创面的愈合情况并运用ELISA方法测量感染前、感染后2 d以及治疗后第3、6、9天大鼠皮肤肌肉标本中FGFs的含量。结果χ2检验显示四组的有效率差异有统计学意义(t=50.48，P<0.05)，臭氧水组的有效率最高(70%)，臭氧组其次(50%)，但优于洗必泰组(30%)和对照组(10%)。除感染前外，各个干预组的FGFs含量均与对照组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；同时治疗后第3、6天臭氧水组的FGFs含量[(124.05±7.94)μg/kg，(179.02±14.95)μg/kg]明显高于臭氧组[(78.98±7.22)μg/kg，(112.97±12.66)μg/kg]和洗必泰组[(54.86±6.38)μg/kg，(56.03±7.8)μg/kg]，差异具有统计学意义(t=2.737、2.893、3.022，2.907，均P<0.05)，在治疗后第9天，臭氧组的FGFs含量[(263.79±40.09)μg/kg]与臭氧水组[(260.12±28.9)μg/kg]比较差异无统计学意义(t=-1.023，P>0.05)。结论臭氧和臭氧水均是高效消毒剂，均能够通过提高皮肤肌肉组织中FGFs的含量促使创面的愈合，但臭氧水要优于臭氧。%Objective To explore the effects of ozone and ozone water in repairing the infective wounds by using molecular biology methods. Methods 40 vista rats with infective wounds were randomly divided into 4 groups according to different ways of changing the dressing:chlorhexidine treatment group (n=10), ozone group (n=10), ozone water group (n=10)and the control group (n=10). The reparations of the infective wounds of rats in each group were ob-served and evaluated 9 days after the dressings changing and the FGFs from skin and muscle specimens of all rats in dif-ferent groups were detected before the treatment, 48h after infection and the 3rd, 6th and 9th day of treatment by ELI-SA. Results χ2 test showed the difference of effective rate between each group was significantly important (χ2=50.48, P<0.05). The effective rate of ozone water group was the highest (70%) and that of ozone group was the second (50%) higher than that of chlorhexidine group (30%) and control group (10%). The values of FGFs in treatment groups were significantly higher than that of control group except for the values before the infection. Meanwhile, the values of FGFs on the 3rd and the 6th day of treatment in ozone water group (124.05±7.94)μg/kg, (179.02±14.95) μg/kg were higher than that of ozone group (78.98±7.22)μg/kg, (112.97±12.66)μg/kg and that of chlorhexidine group (54.86±6.38)μg/kg, (56.03 ± 7.8)μg/kg, and the differences were statistically significant (t=2.737、2.893、3.022, 2.907, P<0.05). On the 9th day after treatment, the difference of FGFs value between ozone water group [(263.79 ± 40.09)μg/kg] and ozone group [(260.12 ± 28.9) μg/kg] was not significantly important (t=-1.023, P>0.05). Conclusion Ozone and Ozone water were both effective disinfectant, they could contribute to the wound healing by improving the FGFS level in skin and muscle tissue. However, the recovery effect of ozone water was better than that of ozone.