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:许文景[1] 黄冬云[2] 朱慕云[1] 李允模[1]
机构地区:[1]苏北人民医院呼吸科,江苏扬州225001 [2]苏北人民医院老年科,江苏扬州225001
出 处:《临床肺科杂志》2010年第5期634-635,共2页Journal of Clinical Pulmonary Medicine
摘 要:目的通过与其他两种常用气胸治疗方法的比较来观察细管胸腔闭式引流治疗气胸的效果。方法采用胸腔穿刺或粗管闭式引流或细管闭式引流三种不同的治疗方法对气胸患者进行治疗,并观察各自的疗效及副作用。结果胸腔穿刺治疗组有效率为62.5%;细管胸腔闭式引流治疗组有效率为92.5%;粗管胸腔闭式引流治疗组有效率为81.4%。结论细管胸腔闭式引流是一种较好的治疗气胸的方法。Objective To observe the effect of closed drainage of thoracic cavity with tubule in the treatment of pneumothorax by comparing two other commonly used ways. Methods The patients with pneumothorax were treated by three different ways : they were thoracentesis, and closed drainage of thoracic cavity with tubule, and closed drainage of thoracic cavity with gross tube. The effects and side effects of each way were observed. Results The effective power was 62.5 % in the group of thoracentesis, the effective power was 92.5% in the group of closed drainage of thoracic cavity with tubule, and the effective power was 81.4% in the group of thoracic cavity with gross tube. Conclusion Closed drainage of thoracic cavity with tubule is an effective way to treat pneumothorax.
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:216.73.216.188