**目的**通过比较两种不同的压力性损伤大鼠模型的建立方法,探索更合适的压力性损伤动物模型制备方法。

**方法**将 18 只雄性 SD 大鼠随机分为对照组(

*n=*6)、模型 A 组(

*n=*6)和模型 B 组(

*n=*6)。 对照组对模拟造模部位脱毛后进行碘伏处理。 模型 A 组采用单纯深部组织异物植入法进行纵向加压;模型 B 组使用磁铁加压法进行横向加压,记录制备各组大鼠产生压力性损伤模型的全程时间及各分期时间,观察大鼠的一般情况,并进行成模率、死亡率、感染率的比较。

**结果**肉眼观察到模型 A 组和模型 B 组均逐渐出现受压部位红肿、溃烂,出现渗血、渗液并伴有坏死现象。 模型 A 组与模型 B 组产生压力性损伤全程时间比较:两组之间差异有统计学意义(

*P<*0. 05)。 模型 A 组与模型 B 组产生压力性损伤各期时间比较:Ⅰ期两组之间差异无统计学意义(

*P>*0. 05);Ⅱ期两组之间差异有统计学意义(

*P<*0. 05);Ⅲ期两组之间差异有统计学意义(

*P<*0. 05);Ⅳ期两组之间差异有统计学意义(

*P<*0. 05)。 对照组大鼠精神、运动评分与模型 A 组、模型 B 组比较有显著性差异(

*P<*0. 05)。 模型 A 组大鼠与模型 B 组大鼠一般状态有明显区别,均出现毛色黯淡、活跃度下降的现象。 模型 A 组大鼠与模型 B 组成模率为100%。 模型 A 组死亡率、感染率高于模型 B 组,分别为 33. 34%、16. 70%。

**结论**两种方式均可成功制备压力性损伤Ⅳ期模型,二者既有共性也有各自特点,磁铁加压法用时短,大鼠一般状态良好,死亡率和感染率低,适合短时间内干预性研究;单纯深部组织异物植入法用时长,需要大鼠有一定耐受性,感染率高,死亡率高,可运用于长期的观察类压力性损伤大鼠的研究。

**Objective**A comparison of two method of establishing pressure ulcer rat models to determine which is the most suitable for experimental use.

**Methods**18 male SD rats were randomly divided into control (

*n=*6), model A (

*n=*6) and model B (

*n=*6) groups. In the control group, iodophor treatment was given after hair removal at the simulated modeling site. In model group A, longitudinal compression was performed by simple deep-tissue foreign body implantation.In model group B, transverse compression was performed via the magnet compression method. The times required to complete the process and for each stage of pressure ulcer model establishment in each group were recorded. The general condition of the rats was observed, and the modeling rate, mortality rate, and infection rate were compared.

**Results**By naked eye, we observed that the model A and model B groups gradually developed redness and swelling, ulceration,bleeding, exudation, and necrosis. Comparison of the whole time to produce pressure uler between model A and model B groups:the difference between the two groups was statitically significant (

*P<*0. 05). Comparison of the time to produce pressure injury between Model A and Model B: The difference between the two groups at stage I was not statistically significant (

*P><*0. 05); the difference between the two groups at stage II was statistically significant (

*P<*0 05); the difference between the two groups at stage III was statistically significant (

*P<*0 05); the difference between the two groups at stage IV was statistically significant

*P<*0 05). The mental and sports scores of the rats in the control group were significantly different from those in the model A and model B groups (

*P<*0. 05). The general state of rats in the model group A was significantly different from that in the model B group, and coat color was dimer and activity decreased in the model group A. The modelling rate of rats in both model A and model B groups was 100%. The mortality and infection rates of the model group A were higher than those of the model group B, which were 33. 34% and 16. 70%, respectively.

**Conclusions**Successful preparation of a four-stage model of pressure ulers in both modalities. The two method have both commonalities and distinct characteristics. The magnet compression method required less time, the rats were generally in good condition, and the mortality and infection rates were low; thus it is suitable for short-term intervention research. The simple deep-tissue foreign body implantation method took longer, required rats to have a certain level of tolerance, had high infection and mortality rates, and is more suitable for use for long-term observations of pressure ulcers.