论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨应用钝针扣眼法在动静脉内瘘穿刺中的护理方式及效果。方法 20例动静脉内瘘行血液透析治疗患者,随机双盲法分为对照组和观察组,每组10例。对照组采取传统钝针穿刺法进行穿刺,观察组减少进针角度、增加利针穿刺次数进行穿刺,并且两组患者在治疗中均采取相应的护理。比较两组的临床效果。结果观察组患者的汉密尔顿焦虑量表(MAHA)评分、视觉模拟疼痛评估法(VAS)评分和生活质量综合评定量表(GQOLI)评分分别为(2.04±0.35)、(1.86±0.27)、(94.34±9.71)分,均优于对照组患者的(4.76±1.37)、(3.97±1.49)、(80.15±9.95)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者的穿刺成功率、并发症发生率以及满意度比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论在动静脉内瘘穿刺中,在采取传统穿刺方法的基础上,减少进针角度穿刺、增加利针穿刺能够取得显著效果,可提高患者的穿刺成功率和穿刺隧道形成,能够降低透析患者因长期穿刺导致的焦虑情绪,疼痛感明显减轻,透析更充分从而提高透析患者的生活质量。
Objective To investigate the nursing methods and effects of using the needle-blind method in arteriovenous fistula puncture. Methods Twenty patients with arteriovenous fistula hemodialysis were randomly divided into control group and observation group with 10 cases in each group. The control group was punctured by the traditional method of blunt-needle puncture. The observation group decreased the needle-point angle, increased the number of needle punctures, and both groups took appropriate care during the treatment. The clinical effects of the two groups were compared. Results The scores of MAHA, VAS and GQOLI in observation group were (2.04 ± 0.35), (1.86 ± 0.27) and (94.34 ± 9.71) were significantly higher than those in the control group (4.76 ± 1.37), (3.97 ± 1.49) and (80.15 ± 9.95) points, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in puncture success rate, complication rate and satisfaction between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of arteriovenous fistula puncture, traditional puncture method based on the reduction of needle puncture, increase the needle puncture can achieve significant results, can improve the success rate of puncture and puncture tunnels in patients can reduce the dialysis patients Long-term puncture-induced anxiety, pain relief significantly reduced, dialysis more fully to improve the quality of life of dialysis patients.