中国医学创新
中國醫學創新
중국의학창신
MEDICAL INNOVATION OF CHINA
2014年
11期
154-156
,共3页
中心静脉导管%胸腔穿刺术%临床应用%胸腔积液
中心靜脈導管%胸腔穿刺術%臨床應用%胸腔積液
중심정맥도관%흉강천자술%림상응용%흉강적액
Central venous catheter%Pleural biopsy%Clinical application%Pleural effusion
目的：比较中心静脉导管行胸穿术与传统的胸穿针行胸穿术的疗效及安全性，为基层医院推广采用中心静脉导管取代传统胸穿针进行胸穿术治疗胸腔积液提供依据。方法：选取2010年3月-2013年3月在本院收治的300例胸腔积液患者，按照随机数字表法将其分为治疗组和对照组各150例，治疗组采用单腔中心静脉导管行胸穿术；对照组采用传统胸穿包的胸穿针行胸穿术。观察比较两组患者穿刺时间、气胸发生率、伤口感染率、住院期间穿刺次数、单次抽液成功率及结核性胸腔积液住院费用之间的差异。结果：两组患者的穿刺时间和伤口感染率比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。但治疗组的气胸发生率和住院期间穿刺次数均明显少于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。且治疗组的单次抽液成功率明显高于对照组，结核性胸腔积液患者住院费用明显少于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：中心静脉导管行胸腔穿刺抽液治疗可减少气胸发生率，减少抽液次数，单次成功率高，住院费用低，值得在基层医院推广应用。
目的：比較中心靜脈導管行胸穿術與傳統的胸穿針行胸穿術的療效及安全性，為基層醫院推廣採用中心靜脈導管取代傳統胸穿針進行胸穿術治療胸腔積液提供依據。方法：選取2010年3月-2013年3月在本院收治的300例胸腔積液患者，按照隨機數字錶法將其分為治療組和對照組各150例，治療組採用單腔中心靜脈導管行胸穿術；對照組採用傳統胸穿包的胸穿針行胸穿術。觀察比較兩組患者穿刺時間、氣胸髮生率、傷口感染率、住院期間穿刺次數、單次抽液成功率及結覈性胸腔積液住院費用之間的差異。結果：兩組患者的穿刺時間和傷口感染率比較差異均無統計學意義（P>0.05）。但治療組的氣胸髮生率和住院期間穿刺次數均明顯少于對照組，差異均有統計學意義（P<0.05）。且治療組的單次抽液成功率明顯高于對照組，結覈性胸腔積液患者住院費用明顯少于對照組，差異均有統計學意義（P<0.05）。結論：中心靜脈導管行胸腔穿刺抽液治療可減少氣胸髮生率，減少抽液次數，單次成功率高，住院費用低，值得在基層醫院推廣應用。
목적：비교중심정맥도관행흉천술여전통적흉천침행흉천술적료효급안전성，위기층의원추엄채용중심정맥도관취대전통흉천침진행흉천술치료흉강적액제공의거。방법：선취2010년3월-2013년3월재본원수치적300례흉강적액환자，안조수궤수자표법장기분위치료조화대조조각150례，치료조채용단강중심정맥도관행흉천술；대조조채용전통흉천포적흉천침행흉천술。관찰비교량조환자천자시간、기흉발생솔、상구감염솔、주원기간천자차수、단차추액성공솔급결핵성흉강적액주원비용지간적차이。결과：량조환자적천자시간화상구감염솔비교차이균무통계학의의（P>0.05）。단치료조적기흉발생솔화주원기간천자차수균명현소우대조조，차이균유통계학의의（P<0.05）。차치료조적단차추액성공솔명현고우대조조，결핵성흉강적액환자주원비용명현소우대조조，차이균유통계학의의（P<0.05）。결론：중심정맥도관행흉강천자추액치료가감소기흉발생솔，감소추액차수，단차성공솔고，주원비용저，치득재기층의원추엄응용。
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of the central venous catheter and traditional transthoracic needle in the thoracic puncture treatment of patients with pleural effusion,and to provide the basis for the central venous catheter replacing traditional transthoracic needle in the treatment of patients with pleural effusion in primary hospital. Method:A total of 300 cases with pleural effusion in our hospital from March 2010 to March 2013 were randomly divided into the treatment group and the control group,150 cases in each group.The treatment group was given single lumen central venous catheter for thoracic puncture and the control group was given traditional thoracentesis package thoracic puncture needle for thoracic puncture.The differences of puncture time,incidence of pneumothorax,wound infection rate,hospitalization time of puncture,single liquid pumping success rate and tuberculous pleural effusion hospitalization expenses between the two groups were observed and compared.Result:The puncture time and wound infection rates of the two groups were compared,the differences were not statistically significant(P>0.05).But the incidence of pneumothorax and the number of hospitalization pleural puncture in the treatment group were significantly less than those in the control group,the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The single liquid pumping success rate of the treatment group was significantly higher than the control group,and hospitalization expenses of patients with tuberculous pleural effusions of the treatment group were significantly less than the control group,the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion:Central venous catheter pleural puncture and drainage treatment can reduce the incidence of pneumothorax,reduce fluid pumping frequency and single high success rate,as well as cost in hospital is low,and it is worthy of being popularized in primary hospital.
