院内自制限制性低渣饮食联合聚乙二醇电解质溶液口服在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用  

Application of a hospital-formulated restricted low-residue diet combined with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in bowel preparation for colonoscopy

作　　者：吕泽 赵春华 华娴[1] 陆锦南 王玲[1] 闵寒[1] LYU Ze;ZHAO Chunhua;HUA Xian;LU Jinnan;WANG Ling;MIN Han(Department of Gastroenterology,The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University,Suzhou 215000,China)

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学附属苏州医院消化内科,江苏苏州215000

出　　处：《山东医药》2025年第3期74-77,82,共5页Shandong Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的观察院内自制限制性低渣饮食联合聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG)口服在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用效果,并探讨减少PEG口服剂量的可能性。方法选择拟行结肠镜检查的住院患者120例,随机分为A、B、C组各40例,最终分别有39、32、36例完成实验。结肠镜检查前1 d,A组给予院内自制限制性低渣饮食联合PEG 2 L口服,B组给予自备低渣饮食联合PEG 2 L口服,C组给予院内自制限制性低渣饮食联合PEG 1.5 L口服。采用波士顿肠道准备评分量表(BBPS)评估三组右半结肠、横结肠和左半结肠的清洁效果,记录三段肠道的BBPS评分及总分,并计算肠道清洁效果达标率。三组在结肠镜操作结束2 h后,以调查问卷的方式评价肠道准备的体验感,包括有无腹胀感、肠道准备难易程度、满意度。比较三组肠道准备过程中的不良反应发生率。结果A组BBPS右半结肠评分及总分均高于B、C组(P均<0.05)。B、C组BBPS右半结肠、横结肠、左半结肠评分及总分比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。A、B、C组肠道清洁效果达标分别为35例(89.74%)、26例(81.25%)、31例(86.11%),三组肠道清洁效果达标率比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。A、B组腹胀感发生率均高于C组,B组肠道准备认为非常麻烦的比例高于A、C组(P均<0.05)。三组肠道准备满意度比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。A、B组恶心发生率均高于C组(P均<0.05)。结论结肠镜检查前采用院内自制限制性低渣饮食联合PEG口服进行肠道准备的清洁效果好、操作简单,在此基础上减少PEG口服剂量的清洁效果尚可,但有助于改善患者体验并减少恶心的发生。Objective To evaluate the efficacy of a hospital-formulated restricted low-residue diet combined with oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution(PEG)in bowel preparation for colonoscopy and to explore the feasibility of minimizing oral bowel cleanser volume.Methods Totally 120 hospitalized patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly allocated into three groups(groups A,B,C;with 40 in each),and 39,32,and 36 patients completed the study,respectively.On the day before colonoscopy:patients in the group A received a restricted low-residue diet plus 2 L PEG;patients in the group B received a self-prepared low-residue diet plus 2 L PEG;patients in the group C received a restricted low-residue diet plus 1.5 L PEG.Colonic cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale(BBPS),and scores for the right colon,transverse colon,left colon,and the total score were recorded.The adequacy rate of bowel preparation was calculated.At 2 h after the procedure,patients completed questionnaires evaluating subjective experiences(abdominal bloating,preparation difficulty,satisfaction).Adverse events were compared among groups.Results Group A exhibited significantly higher BBPS scores in the right colon and total scores as compared with groups B and C(all P<0.05).No significant differences were observed in segmental or total BBPS scores between groups B and C(all P>0.05).The bowel preparation adequacy rates were 89.74%(35/39)in the group A,81.25%(26/32)in the group B,and 86.11%(31/36)in the group C,with no statistically significant differences(all P>0.05).Groups A and B reported higher incidences of abdominal bloating than Group C(all P<0.05).Group B perceived bowel preparation as"extremely cumbersome"more frequently than Groups A and C(all P<0.05).No significant differences were found in adequacy rate of bowel preparation or satisfaction scores among these three groups(all P>0.05).Nausea incidence was higher in the groups A and B than in the group C(all P<0.05).Conclusions The hospital-formulated restricted

关 键 词：限制性低渣饮食 聚乙二醇电解质溶液 结肠镜检查 肠道准备 波士顿肠道准备评分量表 满意度 

分 类 号：R574[医药卫生—消化系统]