中国现代医生
中國現代醫生
중국현대의생
CHINA MODERN DOCTOR
2015年
12期
99-101
,共3页
腰椎骨折手术%回收式自体输血%同种异体输血%腰-硬联合麻醉%用血效果
腰椎骨摺手術%迴收式自體輸血%同種異體輸血%腰-硬聯閤痳醉%用血效果
요추골절수술%회수식자체수혈%동충이체수혈%요-경연합마취%용혈효과
Lumbar fractures operation%Salvaged autotransfusion%Allogeneic blood transfusion%Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia%Blood transfusion effects
目的：比较腰-硬联合麻醉下腰椎骨折手术中采用回收式自体输血与同种异体输血的用血效果。方法选择我院2012年1月~2014年1月接受腰-硬联合麻醉腰椎骨折手术治疗的60例患者为研究对象，根据输血方式不同将其分为对照组和观察组，每组各30例，对照组采取同种异体输血方式，观察组则行回收式自体输血，对两组用血效果及并发症情况进行比较。结果观察组感染率3.33%，对照组感染率20.00%，观察组感染率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组平均输血量、回收量及住院时间比较，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论相比同种异体输血，回收式自体输血具有术后感染率低、住院时间短、血液回收等特点，值得在腰椎骨折手术中进一步推广应用。
目的：比較腰-硬聯閤痳醉下腰椎骨摺手術中採用迴收式自體輸血與同種異體輸血的用血效果。方法選擇我院2012年1月~2014年1月接受腰-硬聯閤痳醉腰椎骨摺手術治療的60例患者為研究對象，根據輸血方式不同將其分為對照組和觀察組，每組各30例，對照組採取同種異體輸血方式，觀察組則行迴收式自體輸血，對兩組用血效果及併髮癥情況進行比較。結果觀察組感染率3.33%，對照組感染率20.00%，觀察組感染率明顯低于對照組(P<0.05)。兩組平均輸血量、迴收量及住院時間比較，差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論相比同種異體輸血，迴收式自體輸血具有術後感染率低、住院時間短、血液迴收等特點，值得在腰椎骨摺手術中進一步推廣應用。
목적：비교요-경연합마취하요추골절수술중채용회수식자체수혈여동충이체수혈적용혈효과。방법선택아원2012년1월~2014년1월접수요-경연합마취요추골절수술치료적60례환자위연구대상，근거수혈방식불동장기분위대조조화관찰조，매조각30례，대조조채취동충이체수혈방식，관찰조칙행회수식자체수혈，대량조용혈효과급병발증정황진행비교。결과관찰조감염솔3.33%，대조조감염솔20.00%，관찰조감염솔명현저우대조조(P<0.05)。량조평균수혈량、회수량급주원시간비교，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론상비동충이체수혈，회수식자체수혈구유술후감염솔저、주원시간단、혈액회수등특점，치득재요추골절수술중진일보추엄응용。
Objective To compare the blood transfusion effects in salvaged autotransfusion and allogeneic blood trans-fusion in the operation of the lower lumbar fractures under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. Methods A total of 60 patients who accepted lumbar fractures operation under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in our hospital from January 2012 to January 2014 were chosen as study objects. According to different blood transfusion ways, 60 patients were divided into the control group and the observation group, with 30 patients in each group. Patients in the control group accepted allogeneic blood transfusion, and patients in the observation group accepted salvaged autotransfusion. The blood transfusion effects and complications in the two groups were compared. Results The infection rate in the ob-servation group was 3.33%, and the infection rate in the control group was 20.00%. The infection rate in the observa-tion group was significantly lower than that in the observation group(P<0.05). In addition, the differences in the average amount of blood transfusion, blood recovery and hospitalization time were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclu-sion Compared with allogeneic blood transfusion, salvaged autotransfusion has lower postoperative infection rate, shorter hospitalization time and blood recovery, and it is worth promoting salvaged autotransfusion for further applica-tion in lumbar fractures operation.
