论文部分内容阅读
目的比较改良闭式引流及传统闭式引流治疗新生儿张力性气胸的效果。方法对本科收治的48例张力性气胸新生儿根据入院时间不同分为2组,采用改良闭式引流术者为治疗组,共23例;进行传统闭式引流法治疗者为对照组,共25例。分别对其手术操作时间、起效时间、呼吸机参数下调时间、呼吸机使用时间及伤口大小、并发症等方面采用SPSS 10.0软件进行统计学分析。结果与对照组[(17.85±4.62)min、(50.27±12.35)min、(4.29±1.76)h、(6.74±1.88)d、(1.52±0.93)cm]比较,治疗组手术操作时间短[(13.49±3.58)min],起效时间快[(32.76±7.10)min],呼吸机参数下调时间快[(1.57±0.41)h],呼吸机使用时间明显缩短[(4.53±0.92)d],且伤口长度小[(0.69±0.21)cm],无伤口感染等并发症。对照组发生伤口感染8例。结论改良闭式引流术是治疗新生儿张力性气胸的较好方法。
Objective To compare the effects of modified closed drainage and traditional closed drainage on neonatal tension pneumothorax. Methods Forty-eight neonates with tension pneumothorax admitted to our hospital were divided into two groups according to the different admission time. Twenty-three patients were treated by modified closed drainage, and 25 patients underwent traditional closed drainage. example. Respectively its operation time, onset time, ventilator parameters down time, ventilator time and wound size, complications and other aspects using SPSS 10.0 software for statistical analysis. Results Compared with the control group [(17.85 ± 4.62) min, (50.27 ± 12.35) min, (4.29 ± 1.76) h, (6.74 ± 1.88) d, (1.52 ± 0.93) cm] 13.5 ± 3.58) min], fast onset time [(32.76 ± 7.10) min], fast ventilator parameter down time (1.57 ± 0.41 h) and significantly shorter duration of ventilator use [(4.53 ± 0.92) d] The wound length was small [(0.69 ± 0.21) cm], no complications such as wound infection. The control group wound infection in 8 cases. Conclusion Modified closed drainage is a better way to treat neonatal tension pneumothorax.