辨证论治联合西药治疗IgA肾病的临床研究

目的研究辨证分型联合西药治疗免疫球蛋白a(Ig A)肾病的临床效果。方法选取收治的74例Ig A肾病患者,采用均衡分组法分为西药组和联合组,各37例。西药组采用氯沙坦钾片治疗,联合组辅以辨证分型治疗,治疗6个月后开展随访观察疗效。结果联合组治疗总有效率94.59%高于西药组的64.86%,联合组并发症发生率2.70%低于西药组的21.62%,联合组不良反应发生率2.70%低于西药组的24.32%,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,联合组血肌酐高于西药组和治疗前,尿红细胞、尿蛋白指标低于西药组和治疗前,对比有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论辨证分型联合西药治疗Ig A肾病的临床效果显著,可降低并发症及不良反应发生风险,改善其血液指标,具有较高临床推广价值。     

重灸中脘穴对脾胃虚寒型糖尿病胃轻瘫患者胃肠激素、胃动力学的影响

目的观察重灸中脘穴对脾胃虚寒型2型糖尿病胃轻瘫患者胃肠激素、胃动力学的影响。方法选取符合纳入标准的88例脾胃虚寒型糖尿病胃轻瘫患者,按随机数字表法分为治疗组和对照组,每组44例。对照组采用常规药物治疗,治疗组采用重灸中脘穴治疗。疗程结束后记录并对比分析两组临床疗效、胃肠激素[胃泌素(GAS)、胃动素(MTL)]、胃动力学(胃收缩频率、胃排空时间、胃排空率)、主要临床症状评分等变化。结果治疗组临床疗效明显优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组治疗后GAS、MTL均明显优于治疗前(P<0.05),且治疗组明显优于对照组(P<0.05);两组治疗后胃收缩频率、胃排空时间、胃排空率均明显优于治疗前(P<0.05),且治疗组明显优于对照组(P<0.05);两组治疗后主要临床症状评分均明显优于治疗前(P<0.05),且治疗组明显优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论在常规药物治疗基础上重灸中脘穴治疗脾胃虚寒型2型糖尿病胃轻瘫,可调节胃肠激素,改善胃肠动力,促进胃肠功能恢复。     

Successful Use of Surgically Placed Impella 5.0 and Central Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Circuit in a Patient with Postcardiotomy Shock

The Impella 5.0, a percutaneously inserted left ventricular assist device, has been used to support patients who have severe heart failure or who are undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. We report our surgical placement of the Impella 5.0, through a graft sewn to the aorta, to unload the left ventricle of a 59-year-old man who was undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy shock. The patient underwent successful placement of a long-term left ventricular assist device before his discharge from the hospital. The versatility of the Impella 5.0 is exemplified in this patient who was successfully bridged to long-term support.     

Risk factors for major complications after liver resection: A large liver resection study from Morocco and audit of a non-Eastern/non-Western experience

Background and Study AimsIn developing countries, endemic indications, blood shortages, and the scarcity of liver surgeons and intensive care providers can affect liver resection (LR) outcomes, but these have been rarely addressed in the literature. Therefore, in this study we determined risk factors for major complications after LR in a North African general surgery and teaching department.Patients and MethodsFrom January 2010 to December 2015, 213 consecutive LRs were performed on 203 patients. All patients underwent a postoperative follow-up of >90 days. Postoperative complications were assessed according to the Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications. A score of CD ≥III is considered as major postoperative complications. In this study, we analyzed the variables assumed to affect these complications.ResultsThe overall 90-day complication rate was 35.7% (n = 76), including a CD ≥III of 14% (n = 30) and a mortality rate of 6.1% (n = 14). According to the multivariate analysis, a preoperative performance status (PS) of ≥2 (P = 0.011; odds ratios [OR], 6.8; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.55–29.8), an estimated intraoperative blood loss of >500 ml (P = 0.002; OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.23–11.20), and bilioenteric anastomosis (P < 0.004; OR, 7.76; 95% CI, 1.5–3.89) were independent risk factors for major complications after LR.ConclusionWe recommend that, in the setting of a non-Eastern/non-Western general surgery and teaching department, patients with a PS of ≥2 should undergo a specific selection and preoperative optimization protocol; intermittent clamping indications should be extended; and special attention should paid to patients undergoing LR associated with biliary reconstruction, such as for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.     

细节护理对尿毒症血液透析患者的效果研究

目的针对尿毒症血液透析患者护理工作中应用护理细节对其生存质量和并发症的作用予以分析和研究。方法 2017年6月-2018年12月选择本院收治的90例尿毒症透析患者作为研究对象,按照硬币法将所有人随机分为两组,其中常规组45例,细节组45例。采用常规护理对常规组予以护理,在常规护理的基础上,采用细节护理干预措施对细节组予以护理。对两组患者的护理效果进行分析和比较。结果在SF-36评分方面,两组患者护理前比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),护理后,细节组明显优于常规组(P<0.05)。在并发症发生率方面,细节组明显低于常规组(P<0.05)。结论采用细节护理干预措施对尿毒症血液透析患者进行护理效果很好,患者的生存质量经过护理后具有很大改善,且并发症也明显减少。     

Risk factors associated with postoperative prosthetic graft patency in Leriche syndrome

Background

In Leriche syndrome, postoperative graft thrombosis remains one of the most significant clinical challenges.

Advantages of an Anterior-Based Muscle-Sparing Approach in Transitioning From a Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Minimizing the Learning Curve

BackgroundEnthusiasm for anterior-based approaches for total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to increase but there is concern for increased complications during the learning curve period associated. This study aimed to investigate if there was a difference in perioperative variables, intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications, or patient-reported outcomes when transitioning from a mini-posterior approach (mPA) to an anterior-based muscle-sparing (ABMS) approach for THA.MethodsRetrospective cohort study on the first 100 primary THA cases (n = 96 patients) of the senior author (August 2016 to August 2017) using the ABMS approach. These cases were compared to primary THA cases done the year prior (July 2015 to July 2016, n = 91 cases in 89 patients) using an mPA. Data were extracted and analyzed via gamma regression with robust standard errors and using generalized estimating equation regression.ResultsWe found no difference in the estimated blood loss (P = .452) and surgical time (P = .564) between the cohorts. The ABMS cases had a slightly shorter length of stay (P = .001) with an adjusted mean length of stay of 1.53 days (95% confidence interval 1.4-1.6) compared to 1.85 days (95% confidence interval 1.8-1.9) in the mPA cases. There was no difference in the frequency of immediate postoperative complications (all, P > .05). There was no difference in the adjusted mean change in patient-reported outcomes (all P > .05). In the ABMS group, there was no difference in surgical time or physical function computerized adaptive test between the first 20 cases (reference) and each subsequent group of 20 cases (all P > .05).ConclusionThis study demonstrates no associated learning curve for an experienced senior surgeon when switching routine THA approach from mPA to ABMS. We advise careful interpretation of our results, as they may not apply to all surgeons and practices.Level of EvidenceLevel III Therapeutic Study: retrospective comparative study.