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:李懔 蒋金娣[1,2] 桂波 唐晓阳[1,2] 钱燕宁
机构地区:[1]南京医科大学第一附属医院 [2]江苏省人民医院麻醉科,210029
出 处:《临床麻醉学杂志》2014年第4期353-355,共3页Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology
摘 要:目的比较阻力变化定位法与听诊定位法在左侧双腔支气管导管(DLT)定位时的效果。方法 120例需行单肺通气的手术患者,依定位方法不同,随机分为两组,每组60例。A组使用传统听诊定位法,B组使用阻力变化定位法。记录纤维支气管镜调整至最佳位置时导管移动的距离、导管定位时间、定位成功率等。结果与A组比较,B组导管定位时间[(61.8±11.3)vs.(112.6±69.2)s]明显缩短(P<0.05),一次导管定位成功率(98.3%vs.50.0%)及导管正位率(69.5%vs.29.3%)均明显提高(P<0.05)。结论与传统听诊定位法比较,阻力变化法定位迅速且正位率高。Objective To compare and evaluate the clinical feasibility of the resistance changing in correct double-lumen endobronchial tube(DLT) placement. Methods One hundred and twenty thoracic surgery patients requiring one-lung ventilation, were randomly allocated to receive traditional DLT localization method (group A) and resistance changing method (group B). All patients in each group were intubated by three anesthetists, separately. The adjusting distance of the tube under bronchoscopy, the time of correct tube localization, and the success rate of correct localization were compared. Results Compared with group A, the time of correct tube localization in group B [-(61.8± 11.3) vs. (112.6±69.2) s] was significantly shorter (P〈0. 05), and the success rate of one time localization (98.3% vs. 50.0%) and the success rate of correct localization (69.5% vs. 29.3%) was significantly increased (P〈0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional tube localization, resistance changing is a quicker method for correct DLT placement.
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:216.73.216.28