中国医药指南
中國醫藥指南
중국의약지남
CHINA MEDICINE GUIDE
2014年
7期
16-17
,共2页
B超引导%经皮穿刺注射%消痔灵液%无水乙醇%肾囊肿
B超引導%經皮穿刺註射%消痔靈液%無水乙醇%腎囊腫
B초인도%경피천자주사%소치령액%무수을순%신낭종
Guidance of B-mode ultrasonography%Percutaneous injection therapy%Xiaozhiling Injection%Anhydrous ethanol%Renal cysts
目的:比较B超引导下经皮穿刺注射消痔灵液和无水乙醇治疗肾囊肿的临床疗效。方法选取2007年6月至2011年6月间进入我院接受肾囊肿治疗的患者60例,随机分为观察组与对照组,每组包括30例患者。对照组患者给予B超引导下经皮穿刺注射无水乙醇治疗,观察组患者给予B超引导下经皮穿刺注射消痔灵液治疗。结果观察组患者的总有效率为93.33%,对照组的总有效率为90.00%,两组患者的总有效率之间相互比较结果无显著性差异(P>0.05)。观察组共有10例患者出现不同程度的不良反应发生,不良反应的发生率为33.33%,明显低于对照组的18例,60.00%(P<0.05)。结论B超引导下经皮穿刺注射消痔灵液和无水乙醇治疗肾囊肿的疗效无显著性差异,但是消痔灵液不良反应少,值得在临床中推广应用。
目的:比較B超引導下經皮穿刺註射消痔靈液和無水乙醇治療腎囊腫的臨床療效。方法選取2007年6月至2011年6月間進入我院接受腎囊腫治療的患者60例,隨機分為觀察組與對照組,每組包括30例患者。對照組患者給予B超引導下經皮穿刺註射無水乙醇治療,觀察組患者給予B超引導下經皮穿刺註射消痔靈液治療。結果觀察組患者的總有效率為93.33%,對照組的總有效率為90.00%,兩組患者的總有效率之間相互比較結果無顯著性差異(P>0.05)。觀察組共有10例患者齣現不同程度的不良反應髮生,不良反應的髮生率為33.33%,明顯低于對照組的18例,60.00%(P<0.05)。結論B超引導下經皮穿刺註射消痔靈液和無水乙醇治療腎囊腫的療效無顯著性差異,但是消痔靈液不良反應少,值得在臨床中推廣應用。
목적:비교B초인도하경피천자주사소치령액화무수을순치료신낭종적림상료효。방법선취2007년6월지2011년6월간진입아원접수신낭종치료적환자60례,수궤분위관찰조여대조조,매조포괄30례환자。대조조환자급여B초인도하경피천자주사무수을순치료,관찰조환자급여B초인도하경피천자주사소치령액치료。결과관찰조환자적총유효솔위93.33%,대조조적총유효솔위90.00%,량조환자적총유효솔지간상호비교결과무현저성차이(P>0.05)。관찰조공유10례환자출현불동정도적불량반응발생,불량반응적발생솔위33.33%,명현저우대조조적18례,60.00%(P<0.05)。결론B초인도하경피천자주사소치령액화무수을순치료신낭종적료효무현저성차이,단시소치령액불량반응소,치득재림상중추엄응용。
Objective To compare the efifcacy between xiaozhiling injection and anhydrous ethanol percutaneous injection therapy on renal cysts under the guidance of B-mode ultrasonography. Method 60 patients with renal cysts were selected and randomly divided into the control group and the observation group. The patients of the observation group were given the percutaneous injection therapy with xiaozhiling injection under the guidance of B-mode ultrasonography. The patients of the control group were given the percutaneous injection therapy with anhydrous ethanol under the guidance of B-mode ultrasonography. Results The total efifciency of the observation group was 93.33% and the total efifciency of the observation group was 90.00%. There was no difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions of the observation group was 33.33% and it was obviously lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion There was no difference between the therapy of xiaozhiling injection and anhydrous ethanol. Xiaozhiling injection had less adverse reactions and deserved promotion.