论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比X线与超声监视下肠套叠复位成功率,选择更合适的方法进行肠套叠诊治。方法:回顾对比分析我院自2010年至今超声监视下水压灌肠复位肠套叠与X线监视下空气灌肠复位的肠套叠病例的诊治效果。39例经X线监视下空气灌肠复位,36例经超声监视下水压灌肠复位。结果:所有病例均证实为肠套叠。36例空气灌肠复位成功,成功率为92.3%(36/39),34例水压灌肠复位成功,成功率为94.4%(34/36)。其余5例套叠时间均超过48小时,复位失败后均经手术治疗,其中3例回结型,2例小肠型,均行手术松解。结论:本组病例中X线监视下空气灌肠复位和超声监视下空气灌肠复位的成功率均较高,两者之间的差异没有显著意义(P>0.05)。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rate of X-ray and intussusception under ultrasonic monitoring to select a more suitable method for intussusception diagnosis and treatment. Methods: The comparative analysis of the diagnosis and treatment of intussusception cases in our hospital from 2010 to present under hydrodynamic enema with hydrostatic enema reduction and air enema reduction under X-ray was performed. 39 cases of air enema under X-ray monitoring reset, 36 cases of water enema reduction under ultrasound monitoring. Results: All cases were confirmed as intussusception. Thirty-six cases of air enema were successfully resected, with a success rate of 92.3% (36/39). 34 cases underwent water enema reduction with a success rate of 94.4% (34/36). The other 5 cases of intussusception more than 48 hours, after the failure were treated by surgery, of which 3 cases of knot-knot, 2 cases of small intestine, were performed surgical release. Conclusion: The success rates of air enema reduction and air enema reduction under ultrasound monitoring are higher in this group of patients with X-ray monitoring. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05).