论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨不同麻醉方式下超声支气管针吸活检术(EBUS-TBNA)麻醉效果的差异,寻找临床实用的快捷、方便、安全的麻醉方法。方法:将2015年3~10月内镜科就诊的100例EBUS-TBNA治疗的患者随机分为对照组和实验组各50例,在优质护理服务下,对照组采用全麻或基础麻醉方式进行检查,实验组采用局麻方式进行检查,比较两组检查过程中心率、血压、血氧饱和度及检查时间。结果:100例患者均顺利成功完成检查,且无并发症发生;两组收缩压比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组心率、舒张压、血氧饱和度及检查时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:EBUS-TBNA并非一定需要在全麻或基础麻醉下进行,局麻条件下进行穿刺节省了人力物力及患者治疗费用;同时局麻过程简便、安全,节省了麻醉时间和苏醒时间,值得临床推广应用。
OBJECTIVE: To explore the difference of anesthesia effects of EBUS-TBNA under different anesthesia modes in order to find out a practical, convenient, safe and safe anesthetic method. Methods: One hundred cases of EBUS-TBNA treated by endoscopy department from March to October 2015 were randomly divided into control group and experimental group, 50 cases in each group. Under the high-quality nursing service, the control group was treated with general anesthesia or basic anesthesia Examination, the experimental group using local anesthesia to check the comparison of the two groups during the examination of heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and examination time. Results: All the 100 patients successfully completed the examination without complications. There was significant difference in systolic pressure between the two groups (P <0.05). The differences of heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation and examination time between the two groups were statistically significant No statistical significance (P> 0.05). Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA does not necessarily need to be performed under general anesthesia or basic anesthesia. Puncturing under local anesthesia saves manpower and material resources as well as patient’s treatment cost. At the same time, the procedure of local anesthesia is simple and safe, saving anesthetic time and awakening time, Promote the application.