两种不同方法对结核性胸腔积液的疗效  

Observation of clinical effect using two types of methods in treating tubercular pleurisy

作　　者：李学玲[1] 翁丽珍[1] 郑晓虎[1] 方素芳[1] 王岗玲[1] 

机构地区：[1]福建医科大学临床教学医院,福州肺科医院350008

出　　处：《临床肺科杂志》2006年第2期144-145,共2页Journal of Clinical Pulmonary Medicine

摘　　要：目的观察中心静脉导管行胸腔闭式引流术与传统胸腔穿刺抽液对结核性渗出性胸膜炎临床疗效。方法治疗组142例应用中心静脉导管行胸腔闭式引流术;对照组140例应用传统胸腔穿刺抽液法每周2次,观察发热、气促改善、胸水吸收时间、并发症等情况。结果平均退热时间、气促缓解时间治疗组较对照组明显缩短,胸水吸收时间治疗组6.92±4.61天,对照组22.57±15.13天,胸膜增厚程度治疗组10.54±8.59mm,对照组19.36±9.87mm,两组有显著性差异(P<0.01)。对照组并发症发生率14.29%,明显高于治疗组14.1%。结论应用中心静脉导管行胸腔闭式引流术,仅需一次性操作,可较快减轻临床症状,缩短治疗时间,并发症少。Objective To observe clinical effects of using central venuous chest closed drainage technique and traditional chest cavity drainage technique in drawing fluid from tubercular pleurisy patients. Methods The treatment group of 112 patients used central venuous chest-closed drainage technique and the control group of 140 used traditional chest cavity drainage technique. The treatment period was two-week tong. The clinical measures of fever, short of breath, fluid absorbing time and complications. Results The mean fever reducing time and time for short breath were significantly shorted in the treatment group than in the control group. The mean days for chest fluid drawing were 6.92±1.61 for the treatment group and 22.57±15.13 for the control group： P 〈 0.01. The mean pleural membrane thickening were 10.54±8.59 mm for the treatment group and 19.36±9.87 mm for the control group： P 〈 0. 01. The incidence for complications was 14. 29% for the eontrol group, which was signficantly higher than the treatment group of 14.1%. Conclusion The central venuous chest-closed drainage technique is easy to use. It can reduce clinical symptoms relatively quickier, shorten treatment period and complications.

关 键 词：结核 胸腔积液 中心静脉导管 引流术 抽液 

分 类 号：R521.7[医药卫生—内科学] R561.4[医药卫生—临床医学]