论文部分内容阅读
目的对比钛夹夹闭(EHP)与套扎术(EBL)在Malloy-Weiss综合征(MWS)不同撕裂伤形态下临床疗效的差异。方法回顾分析腔镜中心2012年1月至2015年12月行胃镜治疗的27例MWS患者,其中行EHP治疗13例(EHP组),行EBL治疗14例(EBL组)。比较不同裂伤情况下两组患者胃镜操作时间及住院时间。结果 EHP和EBL组内镜操作时间Ⅰ级撕裂时为(17.5±3.9)min和(21.1±5.1)min,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);Ⅱ级时分别为(13.1±3.2)min和(16.8±4.9)min,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);Ⅲ级时为(9.4±0.8)min和(9.4±1.2)min,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。所有患者均一次内镜治疗后彻底止血,同级条件下两组患者住院时间无明显差异(P均>0.05)。结论在各级裂伤形态下,EHP组内镜操作时间相对较短,且止血风险小,故更适合MWS患者治疗。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of EHP and ligation (EBL) in different lacerations of Malloy-Weiss syndrome (MWS). Methods A retrospective analysis of 27 patients with MWS under endoscopy from January 2012 to December 2015 in the endoscopic center was performed. EHP was performed in 13 patients (EHP group) and EBL treatment was performed in 14 patients (EBL group). Compare the gastroscope operation time and hospital stay in two groups of patients with different lacerations. Results The endoscopic operation time in EHP and EBL group was (17.5 ± 3.9) min and (21.1 ± 5.1) min respectively, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05) ± 3.2) min and (16.8 ± 4.9) min, respectively, there was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05), while it was (9.4 ± 0.8) min and (9.4 ± 1.2) min in grade Ⅲ Significance (P> 0.05). All patients were completely hemostatic after endoscopic treatment, no significant difference in hospitalization time between the two groups under the same level (P> 0.05). Conclusions The endoscopic operation time of EHP group is relatively short and the risk of hemostasis is small at all levels of laceration, so it is more suitable for the treatment of patients with MWS.