论文部分内容阅读
目的观察中心静脉导管置入法在胸腔积液治疗中的疗效与并发症。方法选取两组各50例患者,分别作为研究组和对照组,研究组采用中心静脉导管置入法放液,对照组接采用统胸腔穿刺法抽液,观察两组患者的治疗情况和并发症的发生情况,将相关数据进行统计学分析。结果研究组和对照组在治疗情况方面相比较,包括胸腔穿刺次数[(1.06±1.30)次vs(5.20±2.60)次]、胸腔积液B超定位次数[(1.6±1.3)次vs(5.5±1.5)次]、症状好转或消失时间[(3.42±2.57)d vs(7.43±1.85)d]、平均住院时间[(8.1±5.8)d vs(24.5±15.3)d]、穿刺相关费用[(402.5±51.80)元vs(732.8±81.21)元],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组和对照组在人均并发症的发生率方面相比较(12%vs 40%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论中心静脉导管置入法较传统的胸腔穿刺抽液法有较好的疗效,并有较低的并发症发生几率。
Objective To observe the curative effect and complications of central venous catheterization in the treatment of pleural effusion. Methods Fifty patients in each group were selected as the study group and the control group respectively. The study group was treated with central venous catheterization and the control group was treated by systemic thoracentesis. The treatment and complications of the two groups were observed The occurrence of the situation, the relevant data for statistical analysis. Results Compared with the control group, the number of pleural punctures [(1.06 ± 1.30) vs (5.20 ± 2.60)], the number of pleural effusion B-locating [(1.6 ± 1.3) vs (5.5 ± 1.5), the time of symptom improvement or disappearance [(3.42 ± 2.57) d vs (7.43 ± 1.85) d], average length of stay [(8.1 ± 5.8) d vs (24.5 ± 15.3) d] (402.5 ± 51.80) yuan vs (732.8 ± 81.21) yuan], the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); the difference between the study group and the control group in the incidence of per capita complication (12% vs 40%) There was statistical significance (P <0.05). Conclusion Central venous catheterization has better curative effect than traditional thoracentesis and drainage, and has a lower incidence of complications.