海南医学
海南醫學
해남의학
HAINAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
2014年
16期
2371-2372
,共2页
景海涛%赵俊%陈映君%张涛%艾力·马合木提%马吾浪·乌布利埃拉
景海濤%趙俊%陳映君%張濤%艾力·馬閤木提%馬吾浪·烏佈利埃拉
경해도%조준%진영군%장도%애력·마합목제%마오랑·오포리애랍
前急救%多发伤%创伤评分
前急救%多髮傷%創傷評分
전급구%다발상%창상평분
Pre-hospital emergency%Multiple traumas%ISS
目的:探讨不同转运方式对区域内多发伤患者预后生存概率和ISS评分的影响。方法选取2011年6月至2013年12月我院接诊收治的多发伤患者140例,分别采用欧洲国家为代表的“就地抢救(Stay and play)”的方法(n=98)和以北美国家为代表的“拉了就跑(Scoop and run)”的急救方法(n=42),比较两种转运方式多发伤患者的生存概率和ISS评分。结果两组转运方式比较,“就地抢救”ISS评分为(15.80±2.9)分,“拉了就跑”ISS评分为(15.36±2.1)分,ISS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),“就地抢救”Ps(ASCOT)生存概率和Ps (TRISS)生存概率分别为92.86%、93.88%,“拉了就跑”则分别为80.95%、83.33%,生存概率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);“拉了就跑”患者的好转率为64.3%,明显低于“就地抢救”的80.0%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在我区采用就地抢救的方式治疗多发伤患者效果更好。
目的:探討不同轉運方式對區域內多髮傷患者預後生存概率和ISS評分的影響。方法選取2011年6月至2013年12月我院接診收治的多髮傷患者140例,分彆採用歐洲國傢為代錶的“就地搶救(Stay and play)”的方法(n=98)和以北美國傢為代錶的“拉瞭就跑(Scoop and run)”的急救方法(n=42),比較兩種轉運方式多髮傷患者的生存概率和ISS評分。結果兩組轉運方式比較,“就地搶救”ISS評分為(15.80±2.9)分,“拉瞭就跑”ISS評分為(15.36±2.1)分,ISS評分比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05),“就地搶救”Ps(ASCOT)生存概率和Ps (TRISS)生存概率分彆為92.86%、93.88%,“拉瞭就跑”則分彆為80.95%、83.33%,生存概率比較差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05);“拉瞭就跑”患者的好轉率為64.3%,明顯低于“就地搶救”的80.0%,兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論在我區採用就地搶救的方式治療多髮傷患者效果更好。
목적:탐토불동전운방식대구역내다발상환자예후생존개솔화ISS평분적영향。방법선취2011년6월지2013년12월아원접진수치적다발상환자140례,분별채용구주국가위대표적“취지창구(Stay and play)”적방법(n=98)화이북미국가위대표적“랍료취포(Scoop and run)”적급구방법(n=42),비교량충전운방식다발상환자적생존개솔화ISS평분。결과량조전운방식비교,“취지창구”ISS평분위(15.80±2.9)분,“랍료취포”ISS평분위(15.36±2.1)분,ISS평분비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05),“취지창구”Ps(ASCOT)생존개솔화Ps (TRISS)생존개솔분별위92.86%、93.88%,“랍료취포”칙분별위80.95%、83.33%,생존개솔비교차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05);“랍료취포”환자적호전솔위64.3%,명현저우“취지창구”적80.0%,량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론재아구채용취지창구적방식치료다발상환자효과경호。
Objective To explore the influence of different modes of transport on prognosis and the ISS score in patients with multiple trauma. Methods A total of 140 patients with multiple traumas were selected. One group received the "on-site rescue (stay and play)" method (n=98), and the other group was given "pull the run (run and run)" emergency method (n=42). Survival rates and the ISS scores were compared between the two groups. Results The ISS score of the on-site rescue method group was (15.80 ± 2.9) and that of the“pull the run”method group was (15.36 ± 2.1). There was no statistical difference between the two groups. The survival rates of Ps (ASCOT) and Ps (TRISS) in on-site rescue method group were 92.86% and 93.88% respectively, while those were 80.95%and 83.33%in the“pull the run”method group respectively. There were statistical significant differences (P<0.05). Furthermore, the recovery rate of"pull the run"method group (64.3%) was significantly lower than that of the"on-site rescue"method group (80.0%), with a statistical significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusion The on-site res-cue method shows better effects in the treatment of multiple traumas in our area.