两种不同ASD手术效果对比及手术配合体会  

Comparing the Effects of Two Different ASD Surgeries and Experience with Surgery

作　　者：周津津 李敏 曾秋芸 ZHOU Jinjin;LI Min;ZENG Qiuyun(Xiamen University Affiliated Cardiovascular Hospital,Xiamen 361000,China)

机构地区：[1]厦门大学附属心血管病医院,福建厦门361000

出　　处：《中外医学研究》2018年第29期179-180,共2页CHINESE AND FOREIGN MEDICAL RESEARCH

摘　　要：目的:研究比较经胸小切口ASD微创封堵和体外循环直视下ASD修补手术的配合体会。方法:通过2014-2016年笔者所在科经胸小切口微创封堵92例和体外循环129例,并进行相应的手术配合,对比分析两组手术成功率、并发症、手术时间、住院天数的差异。结果:微创组成功率和并发症发生率与体外循环组比较均差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),微创组的手术、住院时间显著短于体外循环组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),结论:两种治疗方法均有较高的成功率,而微创封堵,无X线辐射,操作简单,手术和住院时间短,适应证广泛。Objective：To compare the experience of minimally invasive closure of ASD with transthoracic small incision and repair of ASD under direct cardiopulmonary bypass.Method：We performed minimally invasive closure of 92 cases and 129 cases of cardiopulmonary bypass in our department from 2014 to 2016.We performed corresponding surgical interventions to compare the differences in success rate,complications,operation time, and days of hospitalization between the two groups.Result：There were no difference in the minimally invasive component power and complication rate compared with the cardiopulmonary bypass group（P〉0.05）.The minimally invasive group had significantly shorter surgery and hospital stay than the cardiopulmonary bypass group（P〈0.05）. Conclusion： Both treatment methods have a high success rate, and minimally invasive closure, no X-ray radiation, simple operation, short operation and hospitalization time, should be widely recognized.

关 键 词：ASD 微创 体外循环 效果对比 手术配合 

分 类 号：R472.3[医药卫生—护理学]