目的 探讨在门诊场景下应用一次性负压微引流护创材料（single-use negative pressure wound therapy， sNPWT）联合超声清创术（ultrasound debridement， UD）治疗糖尿病足溃疡（diabetic foot ulcers， DUF）的疗效。 方法 选择2024年6月1日至2025年6月30日山东第二医科大学附属医院内分泌代谢病科门诊收治的糖尿病足患者60例，根据治疗方案不同分为常规治疗组（对照组1）、单一一次性负压微引流护创材料治疗组（对照组2）、联合治疗组（观察组），每组20例。在常规降糖和抗感染治疗基础上，对照组1给予传统外科清创加常规换药治疗；对照组2给予传统外科清创加一次性负压微引流护创材料治疗；联合治疗组给予UD联合一次性负压微引流护创材料治疗。比较3组患者治疗1、2、4周后的主要疗效指标（糖尿病足溃疡创面缩小率、窦道深度变化情况及溃疡愈合率）及次要指标（疼痛评分、生活质量及C反应蛋白水平的表达）。 结果 主要疗效指标：治疗4周后，观察组的创面缩小率（69.16 ± 2.33）%显著高于对照组1的（53.33 ± 2.27）%与对照组2的（58.47 ± 2.15）%，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。观察组的窦道深度降至（0.47 ± 0.19） cm，显著浅于对照组1的（0.88 ± 0.40）cm和对照组2的（0.69 ± 0.32）cm，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。观察组与对照组2的临床总有效率均达95.0%，显著高于对照组1的65.0%，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。次要疗效指标：在患者报告结局方面，观察组的VAS疼痛评分2.05分与Wound-QoL生活质量评分26.65分均为3组中最低值（均P < 0.05），且其生活质量的改善自第2周起即显著优于对照组2（P < 0.05）。在炎症指标方面，观察组4周后的C反应蛋白水平（2.45 ± 0.36） mg/L，显著低于对照组1的（2.86 ± 0.51）mg/L，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。 结论 作为门诊糖尿病足治疗的首次联合应用，一次性负压微引流护创材料联合UD治疗糖尿病足溃疡可促进创面愈合，减轻患者疼痛程度，提高患者生活质量以及抑制炎性因子。

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of combining single-use negative pressure wound therapy （sNPWT） with ultrasound debridement （UD） for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers （DFU） in an outpatient setting. Methods Sixty diabetic foot patients admitted to the Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases Department of Shandong Second Medical University Affiliated Hospital between June 1， 2024， and June 30， 2025， were enrolled. Based on the actual treatment recorded in their medical records， they were divided into three groups （n = 20）： conventional therapy group （control group 1）， sNPWT group （control group 2）， and combined UD + sNPWT group （experimental group）. All patients received standard hypoglycemic and anti-infective therapy. Control group 1 received traditional surgical debridement with routine dressing changes. Control group 2 received traditional surgical debridement plus sNPWT. The experimental group received UD combined with sNPWT. The primary efficacy endpoints （wound area reduction rate， change in sinus tract depth， ulcer healing rate） and secondary endpoints （pain score， quality of life， C-reactive protein levels） were assessed among the three groups at 1， 2， and 4 weeks after treatment initiation. Results Primary efficacy endpoints： After 4 weeks， the wound reduction rate in the experimental group （69.16 ± 2.33） % was significantly higher than that in control group 1 （53.33 ± 2.27） % and control group 2 （58.47 ± 2.15） % （P < 0.05）. The sinus tract depth in the experimental group decreased to （0.47 ± 0.19） cm， significantly shallower than that in control group 1 ［（0.88 ± 0.40） cm］ and control group 2 ［（0.69 ± 0.32） cm］ （P < 0.05）. The overall clinical efficacy rate was 95.0% in both the experimental group and control group 2， significantly higher than the 65.0% in control group 1 （P < 0.05）. Secondary endpoints： The experimental group exhibited the lowest VAS pain score （2.05 points） and Wound-QoL score （26.65 points） among all groups （both P < 0.05）. Quality of life improvements were significantly greater than in control group 2 from week 2 onward （P < 0.05）. The C-reactive protein level in the experimental group ［（2.45 ± 0.36） mg/L］ at 4 weeks was significantly lower than that in control group 1 ［（2.86 ± 0.51） mg/L］ （P < 0.05）. Conclusion The combination of sNPWT and UD， applied for the first time in an outpatient setting for diabetic foot treatment， promotes wound healing， reduces pain， improves quality of life， and suppresses inflammatory factors in patients with DFU.