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
机构地区:[1]重庆医科大学附属第一医院呼吸内科,重庆400016 [2]重庆医科大学附属第一医院肿瘤科,重庆400016
出 处:《中国医疗设备》2010年第2期81-82,共2页China Medical Devices
摘 要:目的比较经股动脉穿刺介入术后,用动脉封堵止血贴止血与传统人工压迫止血方法的效果。方法将100例经股动脉穿刺介入术病人随机分为对照组(45例)和观察组(55例),对照组采用传统人工压迫止血方法,观察组采用动脉封堵止血贴止血。观察两组术后止血时间、病人制动时间及常见并发症的情况。结果观察组止血时间明显短于对照组;观察组下肢制动时间明显短于对照组;局部并发症两组无差异。结论经股动脉介入诊疗术后应用动脉封堵止血贴止血,止血操作和病人制动时间明显缩短,值得推广应用。Objective To compare the effect of haemostatic closure paste with manual compression after femoral artery intervention. Methods 55 patients were treated with haemostatic closure pastes. (observation group), 45 patients were treated with manual compression (control group).The time for hemostasis, time of patients' restriction and major complication rate were analyzed. Results The bleeding time and the days of patients' restriction in the observation group were significantly shorter than the control group.The complication in the puncture site has no difference. Conclusion It is valuable to use the haemostatic closure paste for hemostasis after femoral artery intervention.
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:3.15.31.125