小儿肠套叠空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位的对比分析  

Comparative analysis between air enema reduction and hydrostatic enema reduction in treatment of intussusception

作　　者：马海峰[1] 董贺龙 周福金[1] 董晓松[1] 陈其民[2] 

机构地区：[1]沈阳市儿童医院,辽宁沈阳110001 [2]上海儿童医学中心,上海200127

出　　处：《现代医药卫生》2011年第11期1611-1612,共2页Journal of Modern Medicine & Health

摘　　要：目的:探讨小儿肠套叠空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位的疗效。方法:对比分析128例采用空气灌肠复位和116例采用水压灌肠复位小儿急性肠套叠复位成功率,复位时间,复发率,穿孔率,恢复时间。结果:空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠在复位成功率,复发率,穿孔率和恢复时间上差异无显著性,二者只在复位时间上有所差异,空气灌肠时间短于水压灌肠时间。结论:空气灌肠复位和水压灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠均是安全的、有良好的疗效。空气灌肠在操作方便性方面更有优势,但患儿暴露在放射线下,对健康有一定的危害。Objective：To explore the efficacy of air enema reduction and hydrostatic enema reduction in treating children intussusception.Methods：To comparatively analyze the reposition success rate,reposition time,recurrent rate,perforation rate and recovery time of acute children intussusception between 128 cases of air enema reduction and 116 cases of hydrostatic enema reduction.Results：Air enema reduction and hydrostatic enema reduction had no statistical significant difference in the reposition success rate,reposition time,recurrent rate,perforation rate and recovery time.But,the reposition times in air enema reduction was shorter than that in hydrostatic enema reduction.Conclusion：Air enema reduction and hydrostatic enema reduction are both safe to treat intussusception with better curative effect.Air enema has the advantage in operating convenience,but which has some damage to children due to exposure to X-ray radiation.

关 键 词：空气灌肠 水压灌肠 肠套叠 疗效 

分 类 号：R72[医药卫生—儿科]