两种经皮气管切开术的临床效果比较研究  

Comparison of the curative effect between two different methods of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy （PDT）

作　　者：钱何布[1] 郑志群[1] 何文干[1] 陆骏灏[1] 浦秦华[1] 姚月平[1] 

机构地区：[1]南通大学附属吴江医院ICU,江苏吴江215200

出　　处：《中国急救医学》2009年第7期589-591,共3页Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine

摘　　要：目的 对比研究两种经皮扩张气管切开术（PDT）即经皮导丝扩张钳技术（Poaex法）和经皮旋转扩张气管切开术（Percutwist法）的临床特点。方法选取2007—01～2009～03入住ICU符合气管切开指征的患者80例，随机分为经皮导丝扩张钳技术（A组）和经皮旋转扩张气管切开术（B组），每组各40例，对两组的手术时间、出血量和手术并发症等进行比较。结果两种PDT手术时间相近，均明显短于外科常规气管切开术；经皮旋转扩张气管切开术在出血量和手术并发症方面明显少于经皮导丝扩张钳技术（P〈0．01）。结论经皮旋转扩张气管切开术在减轻手术创伤和减少并发症方面优于经皮导丝扩张钳技术，值得临床推广。Objective To compare the curative effect of two different methods of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy（ PDT ） ：the guide wire dilating forceps （ Portex method ） and the percutaneous rotating dilational traeheostomy（ Pereutwist method ）. Methods From January 2007 to March 2009, 80 cases satisfied the indication of tracheostomy in ICU were collected and were divided into two groups at random, and their operation time and operation complications were compared. Results The operation time of the two PDTs was similar and was obviously shorter than that of conventional tracheostomy; the cases with Pereutwist method had obviously less operation complications and bleeding than those with Portex method（P 〈 0.01 ）. Conclusion The Pereutwist method was better than the Portex method in relieving operation trauma and reducing the complications, and it was worth using widely in clinic.

关 键 词：气管切开术 经皮气管切开术(PDT) 经皮导丝扩张钳技术(GWDF) 经皮旋转扩张气管切开术 

分 类 号：R605.97[医药卫生—急诊医学]