检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:龙晓奇 陈拥军[1] 陈亮[1] 谭晓兰[1] 余小燕[1]
出 处:《西部医学》2008年第3期540-541,543,共3页Medical Journal of West China
摘 要:目的比较运用高频与射频介入技术治疗消化道息肉的疗效。方法对505例消化道息肉患者在内镜下运用高频技术和射频技术治疗,其中高频组125例,射频组380例,观察并比较两种治疗方法的疗效。结果高频组125例中,123例治疗有效,1例广基无蒂较大息肉(2.5 cm)因切割困难后改作射频治疗,1例因有蒂小息肉(0.4 cm)圈套器收较紧造成机械性切割脱落发生出血;射频组380例治疗全部成功,其中4例较大息肉(2.0-3.0 cm)进行二次治疗。结论高频、射频技术在治疗消化道息肉中都是行之有效的介入治疗手段,射频治疗消化道息肉更加安全可靠,易于推广。Objective The compare the therapeutic effect of highfrequency and radiofrequency intervention techniques for treating alimentary canal polyp. Methods A total of 505 cases of alimentary canal polyp were treated by highfrequency (125 cases) or radiofrequency (380 cases) under endoscope. The efficacy was observed and compared between the two methods. Results 123 cases were effective out of 125 cases in the highfrequency group. Among the two failure cases, one case having a wide and pedicleless polyp (2.5 cm), in whom radiofrequency treatment was used instead of highfrequency treatment because of difficulty in incising, another pedicle and little polyp case (0.4 cm) happened to bleed. All the treatments were successful in 380 cases of radiofrequency group, in which, 4 large polyps (2.0-3.0 cm) were treated twice. Conclusion Highfrequency and radiofrequency techniques are effective intervention means in treatment of alimentary canal polyp, in which radiofrequency treatment is more reliable and safe.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.70