中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2014年
35期
28-31
,共4页
结肠灌洗法%结肠镜检查%肠道准备%泻药
結腸灌洗法%結腸鏡檢查%腸道準備%瀉藥
결장관세법%결장경검사%장도준비%사약
Colonic irrigation%Colonoscopy%Bowel preparation%Laxative
目的：观察结肠灌洗法应用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备的效果、肠道准备时间、不良反应并进行应用可行性分析。方法将200例拟进行结肠镜检查患者随机均分成研究组和对照组。研究组用结肠灌洗法进行肠道准备；对照组用口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散进行肠道准备。根据结肠镜检查结果判断肠道准备效果，比较两组肠道准备效果、不良反应发生率、肠道准备所需时间等重要指标，并在研究中贯彻盲法实施思想。结果两组肠道准备效果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；不良反应发生率研究组(0%)低于对照组(16%)，差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.01)；肠道准备所需时间研究组为(17±2)min，对照组为(150±30)min，两组比较差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论虽然两组肠道准备效果无明显差异，均能满足结肠镜检查要求，但是结肠灌洗法与口服药相比，具有不良反应少、安全性高、肠道准备所需时间短、效率高、对人体生理干扰较少的优势。提示结肠灌洗法用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备是一个更好的方法，不但可行而且值得推广。
目的：觀察結腸灌洗法應用于結腸鏡檢查前腸道準備的效果、腸道準備時間、不良反應併進行應用可行性分析。方法將200例擬進行結腸鏡檢查患者隨機均分成研究組和對照組。研究組用結腸灌洗法進行腸道準備；對照組用口服複方聚乙二醇電解質散進行腸道準備。根據結腸鏡檢查結果判斷腸道準備效果，比較兩組腸道準備效果、不良反應髮生率、腸道準備所需時間等重要指標，併在研究中貫徹盲法實施思想。結果兩組腸道準備效果差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)；不良反應髮生率研究組(0%)低于對照組(16%)，差異有高度統計學意義(P<0.01)；腸道準備所需時間研究組為(17±2)min，對照組為(150±30)min，兩組比較差異有高度統計學意義(P<0.01)。結論雖然兩組腸道準備效果無明顯差異，均能滿足結腸鏡檢查要求，但是結腸灌洗法與口服藥相比，具有不良反應少、安全性高、腸道準備所需時間短、效率高、對人體生理榦擾較少的優勢。提示結腸灌洗法用于結腸鏡檢查前腸道準備是一箇更好的方法，不但可行而且值得推廣。
목적：관찰결장관세법응용우결장경검사전장도준비적효과、장도준비시간、불량반응병진행응용가행성분석。방법장200례의진행결장경검사환자수궤균분성연구조화대조조。연구조용결장관세법진행장도준비；대조조용구복복방취을이순전해질산진행장도준비。근거결장경검사결과판단장도준비효과，비교량조장도준비효과、불량반응발생솔、장도준비소수시간등중요지표，병재연구중관철맹법실시사상。결과량조장도준비효과차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)；불량반응발생솔연구조(0%)저우대조조(16%)，차이유고도통계학의의(P<0.01)；장도준비소수시간연구조위(17±2)min，대조조위(150±30)min，량조비교차이유고도통계학의의(P<0.01)。결론수연량조장도준비효과무명현차이，균능만족결장경검사요구，단시결장관세법여구복약상비，구유불량반응소、안전성고、장도준비소수시간단、효솔고、대인체생리간우교소적우세。제시결장관세법용우결장경검사전장도준비시일개경호적방법，불단가행이차치득추엄。
Objective To observe the quality of bowel preparation, bowel preparation time, adverse etfect and feasibili-ties of cleaning colon with colonic irrigation before colonoscopy. Methods 200 patients preparing for colonoscopy were randomly and equally divided into the research group and the control group. The research group was given colon irriga-tion for bowel preparation;and the control group was given polyethylene glycol-electrolyte powder orally. The quality of bowel preparation was assessed according to the result of colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, incidence of adverse effects and the time required for intestinal preparation were compared. The blind method was implemented in the research. Results There was no obvious difference between the two groups for intestinal preparation (P>0.05);in-cidence of adverse effects (0% vs 16%) and the time required for bowel preparation [(17±2) min vs (150±30) min] ex-isted significant differences compared between the two groups (P<0.01). Conclusion Although there is no different in effect between the two groups for bowel preparation, colonic irrigation is better than oral medications, such as less ad-verse effects, high security, less intestinal preparation time, high efficiency and less interference to patients with physi-ological characteristics. The colonic irrigation before colonoscopy for bowel preparation is more effective and safer which is a better way and is worth promoting.
