室间隔缺损三种临床疗法的对比分析  

作　　者：黄景思[1] 郑世营[1] 杨谦[2] 孙勇[2] 强海峰[2] 蒋东[1] 

机构地区：[1]苏州大学附属第一医院心胸外科,215006 [2]厦门大学附属中山医院心外科,361004

出　　处：《浙江临床医学》2013年第5期603-605,共3页Zhejiang Clinical Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的对体外循环直视修补术、导管介入封堵术与外科微创封堵术三种治疗室间隔缺损（VSD）的方法进行回顾性临床对比分析研究.方法2011年10月至2012年10月,65例VSD患者分别接受了体外循环直视修补术（A组）33例、导管介入封堵术（B组）21例与外科微创封堵术（C组）11例的治疗.结果三组患者均无围手术期死亡病例.A组在手术时间、总出血量和术后住院天数等方面均明显大于B组和C组,后2组间则无明显差异.术后带气管插管时间, A组明显大于C组.由于国产封堵器的应用,住院费用方面,三组间则无明显差异.B组和C组术后常规抗凝4-6个月,A组术后无需抗凝.结论外科微创封堵术优于体外循环直视修补术和导管介入封堵术.Objective In this retrospective study,we compared three different procedures,including open-heart surgery,transcatheter closure and minimally invasive surgery,to analyze which technique is possiblely the best option for treatment of ventricular septal defect. Method 65 patients were enrolled in this study.Specifically 33 patients were treated by open-heart surgery（group A）,21 by transcatheter closure （group B） and 11 by mini-invasive surgery （groupC）.The mean age of three groups was（9.99±9.8）,（10.86±8.48）years old respectively.Meanwhile the diameters of ventricular septal defect were（9.94±5.31）,（6.62±3.72）mm respectively. Result There was no perioperative death in each group .The success rate of treatment was 100%for group A,90.47%for group B,90.9%for group C.The mean operation time, bleeding and length of hospital stay of group A was significantly higher than group B and group C,but there was no significant difference between group B and group C as far as these three indexes are concerned.The duration of postoperative ventilation of group A Was significantly longer than group C.As far as the using of domestic occluder ,The cost of three groups was no significant.Conclusion The Minimally invasive surgery is more superior to the other two techniques.

关 键 词：室间隔缺损体 外循环直视修补术 导管介入封堵术 外科微创封堵术 

分 类 号：R654.2[医药卫生—外科学]