论文部分内容阅读
目的比较胸腔置管负压吸引术与传统胸腔穿刺抽液对结核性渗出性胸膜炎的治疗效果。方法对54例结核性渗出性胸膜炎随机分为两组,胸腔置管负压吸引组28例;胸腔穿刺抽液组26例;胸腔置管负压吸引组采用中心静脉导管留置胸腔负压吸引,流速控制在3~5m l/m in,至胸液排空为止。胸腔穿刺抽液组,按传统方法,每周抽胸液2次,每次抽液量1000m l以内。结果负压吸引组:平均退热时间(2.1±1.2)d;抽液组:(8.7±2.2)d。胸液消退时间:负压吸引组(4.6±3.3)d;抽液组(18.4±3.4)d。并发症:负压吸引组:胸膜增厚粘连1例(3.6%),包裹性胸膜炎无;抽液组:胸膜增厚粘连5例(19.2%),包裹性胸膜炎1例(3.8%)。以上两组所有结果进行比较差异均有非常显著性意义(P<0.01)。结论胸膜置管负压吸引治疗结核性渗出性胸膜炎明显优于传统抽液治疗方法,值得推广。
Objective To compare the curative effect of chest suction tube suction and conventional thoracentesis on tuberculous exudative pleurisy. Methods Fifty-four patients with tuberculous exudative pleurisy were randomly divided into two groups: 28 patients underwent thoracic vacuum suction and 26 patients underwent thoracentesis. The patient underwent thoracic vacuum suction was treated with central venous catheter indwelling thorax negative pressure , Flow rate control in 3 ~ 5m l / m in, until the emptying of the pleural fluid. Thoracentesis abstinence group, according to the traditional method, pumping the chest fluid twice a week, each pumping volume 1000m l or less. Results Negative pressure suction group: the average antipyretic time (2.1 ± 1.2) d; pumping group: (8.7 ± 2.2) d. Pleural effusion time: vacuum suction group (4.6 ± 3.3) d; pumping group (18.4 ± 3.4) d. Complications: negative pressure suction group: pleural thickening adhesion in 1 case (3.6%), encapsulated pleurisy without; pumping group: pleural thickening adhesions in 5 cases (19.2%), wrapped pleurisy in 1 case (3.8%). All the above two groups of all the results were compared between the differences were significant (P <0.01). Conclusion Pleural tube suction suction treatment of tuberculous exudative pleurisy was significantly better than the traditional method of pumping therapy, it is worth promoting.