不同来院方式对多发伤患者预后的临床研究  

Clinical observation of the influence of different modes of transporting on the prognosis of patients with multiple traumas

作　　者：景海涛[1] 赵俊[1] 陈映君[1] 张涛[1] 艾力.马合木提 马吾浪.乌布利埃拉 

机构地区：[1]新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院急救中心,新疆乌鲁木齐830001

出　　处：《海南医学》2014年第16期2371-2372,共2页Hainan Medical Journal

基　　金：新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金资助项目(编号:2011211A057)

摘　　要：目的探讨不同转运方式对区域内多发伤患者预后生存概率和ISS评分的影响。方法选取2011年6月至2013年12月我院接诊收治的多发伤患者140例,分别采用欧洲国家为代表的"就地抢救(Stay and play)"的方法(n=98)和以北美国家为代表的"拉了就跑(Scoop and run)"的急救方法(n=42),比较两种转运方式多发伤患者的生存概率和ISS评分。结果两组转运方式比较,"就地抢救"ISS评分为(15.80±2.9)分,"拉了就跑"ISS评分为(15.36±2.1)分,ISS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),"就地抢救"Ps(ASCOT)生存概率和Ps(TRISS)生存概率分别为92.86%、93.88%,"拉了就跑"则分别为80.95%、83.33%,生存概率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);"拉了就跑"患者的好转率为64.3%,明显低于"就地抢救"的80.0%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在我区采用就地抢救的方式治疗多发伤患者效果更好。Objective To explore the influence of different modes of transport on prognosis and the ISS score in patients with multiple trauma. Methods A total of 140 patients with multiple traumas were selected. One group received the ＂on-site rescue （stay and play）＂ method （n=98）, and the other group was given ＂pull the run （run and run）＂ emergency method （n=42）. Survival rates nd that of the＂pull the run＂method group was （15.36 ± 2.1）. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. The surviand the ISS scores were compared between the two groups. Results The ISS score of the on-site rescue method group was （15.80 ± 2.9） aval rates of Ps （ASCOT） and Ps （TRISS） in on-site rescue method group were 92.86% and 93.88% respectively, while those were 80.95%and 83.33%in the“pull the run”method group respectively. There were statistical significant differences （P〈0.05）. Furthermore, the recovery rate of＂pull the run＂method group （64.3%） was significantly lower than that of the＂on-site rescue＂method group （80.0%）, with a statistical significant difference （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The on-site res-cue method shows better effects in the treatment of multiple traumas in our area.

关 键 词：院前急救 多发伤 创伤评分 

分 类 号：R641[医药卫生—外科学]