前路颈椎内固定术后负压引流与无负压引流的效果比较  

The comparative study of effect between drainage with negative pressure and drainage without negative pressure after anterior cervical spine instrumentation

作　　者：刘伟[1] 薛茵[1] 高德华[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海长海医院脊柱外科,上海200433

出　　处：《临床骨科杂志》2016年第2期202-203,共2页Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics

摘　　要：目的比较前路颈椎内固定手术后两种不同引流方法的效果。方法将112例患者随机分为对照组(术后给予负压引流)和实验组(术后给予无负压引流)。两组患者术式均为前路颈椎间盘摘除+椎间植骨融合内固定,手术部位放置一条引流管,术后当天使用一次止血药物,观察两组患者伤口引流效果、拆线时间及住院时间等。结果在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、引流管拔除时间、术后拆线时间、住院时间方面,两组差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在单个患者术后每日护理工作总耗时方面,实验组少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论两种引流方法对术后伤口引流、拆线及患者康复方面效果相同。采取无负压引流可减轻护理人员的工作量。Objective To compare the effect between two drainage methods after cervical spine instrumentation.Methods 112 patients who received cervical discectomy plus interbody fusion and internal fixation were randomly divided into two groups according to their drainage methods after operation. Patients in control group received drainage with negative pressure,and patients in study group received drainage without negative pressure. One drainage catheter was placed within the wound. Hemostatics were used one time after operation. Wound drainage volume,time of stitches removal and length of hospital stay were observed for the two groups. Results The differences in operation duration,drainage volume after operation,time for drawing drainage catheter,time of stitches removal,and length of hospital stay showed no significance between the two groups（ P 〉 0. 05）. However,the average nursing time of each patient per day（ after operation） in study group was significantly less than that in control group（ P 〈 0. 001）. Conclusions The drainage effectiveness for these two methods is similar. Drainage without negative pressure can reduce the workload of nursing personnel.

关 键 词：颈椎病 颈椎间盘摘除术 椎间植骨融合 负压引流 无负压引流 

分 类 号：R681.5[医药卫生—骨科学] R687.3[医药卫生—外科学]