微创胸腔闭式引流术治疗自发性气胸的临床研究  

Clinical Study on the Treatment of Spontaneous Pneumothorax by Minimally Invasive Closed Thoracic Drainage

作　　者：赖德益[1] LAI Deyi(Department of Respiratory Medicine,The Second Hospital of Sanming,Yong’an Fujian 366000,China)

机构地区：[1]福建省三明市第二医院呼吸内科,福建永安366000

出　　处：《中国卫生标准管理》2020年第15期8-11,共4页China Health Standard Management

摘　　要：目的通过与传统粗硅胶管胸腔闭式引流的比较,观察微创胸腔闭式引流术在自发性气胸治疗的疗效及优缺点,分析其临床价值。方法将2014年4月—2017年10月收治的自发性气胸患者作为实验对象;回顾我院用微创胸腔闭式引流术(29例)及传统硅胶管胸腔闭式引流术(31例)治疗自发性气胸的临床资料,并对疗效、手术操作时间、肺复张时间、留管时间、住院时间及并发症等状况进行比较分析。结果两组患者疗效及肺复张时间差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05),手术操作时间、留管时间、住院时间及并发症相比差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论微创胸腔闭式引流术治疗自发性气胸相比传统硅胶管胸腔闭式引流术方法具有疗效可靠、手术操作快捷简单、创伤小、并发症少、基本无残留疤痕等优点。Objective To observe the efficacy,advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive closed thoracic drainage in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax and analyze its clinical value by comparing it with traditional closed thoracic drainage with thick silica gel tube.Methods Patients with spontaneous pneumothorax admitted from April 2014 to October 2017 were selected as experimental subjects.The clinical data of our hospital in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax with minimally invasive closed thoracic drainage(29 cases)and conventional closed thoracic drainage with silicone tube(31 cases)were reviewed.Results There was no statistical difference in the curative effect and pulmonary retensioning time between the two groups(P>0.05),while there were statistically significant differences in operation time,tube stay time,hospital stay time and complications(P<0.05).Conclusion The minimally invasive closed thoracic drainage for the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax has the advantages of reliable efficacy,quick and simple operation,less trauma,fewer complications,and basically no residual scars compared with the traditional closed thoracic drainage with silicone tube.

关 键 词：微创、传统硅胶管、自发性气胸、胸腔闭式引流 临床疗效 肺复张时间 并发症 

分 类 号：R563[医药卫生—呼吸系统]