中华现代护理杂志
中華現代護理雜誌
중화현대호리잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MODERN NURSING
2014年
25期
3225-3228
,共4页
胆囊切除术,腹腔镜%气腹%悬吊%满意度%护理配合
膽囊切除術,腹腔鏡%氣腹%懸弔%滿意度%護理配閤
담낭절제술,복강경%기복%현조%만의도%호리배합
Cholecystectomy,laparoscopic%Pneumoperitoneum%Suspension%Satisfaction%Nursing cooperation
目的：比较气腹式腹腔镜与悬吊式腹腔镜胆囊切除术的护理方法及术中配合。方法选取2012年4月-2013年5月72例采用气腹式腹腔镜手术、76例悬吊式腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的手术护理进行比较。对比两种术式平均手术时间、术中出血量、术后肩背疼痛发生率及医患满意度。结果气腹式手术患者术中出血量为（298．20±47．78）ml，悬吊式手术为（533．22±90．29）ml；气腹式手术术后患者肩背疼痛7例，悬吊式手术疼痛1例，两组比较差异均有统计学意义（t＝-5．144，χ2＝4．129；P＜0．05）。手术医生对气腹式手术满意度高于悬吊式手术，尤其在用物传递准确率及器械熟练度两项上比较差异有统计学意义（ t值分别为3．130，3．536；P＜0．05）。患者对气腹式手术与悬吊式手术总体满意度差异无统计学意义（t＝-1．925，P＞0．05），但悬吊式手术体位舒适性上要比气腹式手术高，差异有统计学意义（t＝-2．746，P＜0．05）。结论手术室护士应充分掌握气腹式腹腔镜手术和悬吊式手术操作特点才能提高手术护理质量。悬吊式手术作为最新的手术方式之一，手术组人员默契合作及共同努力是其成功的重要保证。
目的：比較氣腹式腹腔鏡與懸弔式腹腔鏡膽囊切除術的護理方法及術中配閤。方法選取2012年4月-2013年5月72例採用氣腹式腹腔鏡手術、76例懸弔式腹腔鏡膽囊切除術患者的手術護理進行比較。對比兩種術式平均手術時間、術中齣血量、術後肩揹疼痛髮生率及醫患滿意度。結果氣腹式手術患者術中齣血量為（298．20±47．78）ml，懸弔式手術為（533．22±90．29）ml；氣腹式手術術後患者肩揹疼痛7例，懸弔式手術疼痛1例，兩組比較差異均有統計學意義（t＝-5．144，χ2＝4．129；P＜0．05）。手術醫生對氣腹式手術滿意度高于懸弔式手術，尤其在用物傳遞準確率及器械熟練度兩項上比較差異有統計學意義（ t值分彆為3．130，3．536；P＜0．05）。患者對氣腹式手術與懸弔式手術總體滿意度差異無統計學意義（t＝-1．925，P＞0．05），但懸弔式手術體位舒適性上要比氣腹式手術高，差異有統計學意義（t＝-2．746，P＜0．05）。結論手術室護士應充分掌握氣腹式腹腔鏡手術和懸弔式手術操作特點纔能提高手術護理質量。懸弔式手術作為最新的手術方式之一，手術組人員默契閤作及共同努力是其成功的重要保證。
목적：비교기복식복강경여현조식복강경담낭절제술적호리방법급술중배합。방법선취2012년4월-2013년5월72례채용기복식복강경수술、76례현조식복강경담낭절제술환자적수술호리진행비교。대비량충술식평균수술시간、술중출혈량、술후견배동통발생솔급의환만의도。결과기복식수술환자술중출혈량위（298．20±47．78）ml，현조식수술위（533．22±90．29）ml；기복식수술술후환자견배동통7례，현조식수술동통1례，량조비교차이균유통계학의의（t＝-5．144，χ2＝4．129；P＜0．05）。수술의생대기복식수술만의도고우현조식수술，우기재용물전체준학솔급기계숙련도량항상비교차이유통계학의의（ t치분별위3．130，3．536；P＜0．05）。환자대기복식수술여현조식수술총체만의도차이무통계학의의（t＝-1．925，P＞0．05），단현조식수술체위서괄성상요비기복식수술고，차이유통계학의의（t＝-2．746，P＜0．05）。결론수술실호사응충분장악기복식복강경수술화현조식수술조작특점재능제고수술호리질량。현조식수술작위최신적수술방식지일，수술조인원묵계합작급공동노력시기성공적중요보증。
Objective To compare the nursing technique between laparoendoscopic surgery with abdominal wall lift ( LESC) and that with pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic cholecystectomy ( PLC) .Methods Data from 76 patients who underwent LESC and 72 patients who underwent PLC between April 2012 and May 2013 were collected .The operating time , estimated blood loss , shoulder and back pain rate , doctors and patients'satisfaction were observed .Results The mean estimated blood loss was significantly more in the LESC group than that in the PLC group [(298.20 ±47.78) vs (533.22 ±90.29)ml;t=-5.144, P<0.05)], while the shoulder and back pain rate of LESC group was significantly lower than that of PLC group (7 vs 1 cases;χ2 =4.129,P<0.05).The doctors'satisfaction in PLC group was higher than that in LESC group ( P<0.05), especially in property transfer accuracy and instrument proficiency ( t=3.130,3.536,respectively;P<0.05).The patients'satisfaction had no significant difference (t=-1.925,P>0.05), while the posture comfort of patients in LESC group was higher than that in PLC group (t=-2.746,P<0.05).Conclusions Operation nurses should fully master the nursing technique and characters of LESC and PLC in order to improve the surgical nursing quality , and the doctor-nurse cooperation is the key for the success of LESC .
