保留自主呼吸非插管单孔胸腔镜手术的临床应用

目的探讨保留自主呼吸非插管单孔胸腔镜治疗胸部疾病的可行性及安全性。方法回顾性分析2018-01—2018-10间应用非气管插管保留自主呼吸麻醉下单孔胸腔镜手术治疗的24例胸部疾病患者的临床资料。结果 24例患者在非气管插管保留自主呼吸麻醉下应用单孔胸腔镜行手术治疗,无中转紧急插管或增加辅助切口。其中,自发性气胸20例,肺结核球1例,肺炎性假瘤2例,胸腺瘤1例。手术时间25～60 min,平均35.5 min。失血量10～50 mL,平均20.2 mL。胸腔闭式引流管引流时间1～4 d,平均2.5 d。术后随访5～12个月,无复发及其他并发症。结论非气管插管保留自主呼吸麻醉下单孔胸腔镜手术治疗胸部疾病,简单易行,安全可靠。     

探究呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果观察

目的观察呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果。方法 2016年11月至2017年2月,在我院的呼吸内科选取了80例呼吸系统疾病重症患者进行研究。为了实验结果的明显性,将实验分成了两组。将对照组的40例患者不给予护理措施,只给予治疗和用药,护理措施全凭患者自己的计划去实行。对实验组的40例患者制定护理计划,并且实行相应的护理措施,为患者做出院指导和防护措施,从各个方面进行护理,阻止病情的进一步发展。结果实验组的40例患者的疾病控制情况要比对照组的40例患者效果要好,结果具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论呼吸系统的疾病,一般分为病原菌的侵入和自身的炎症,无论是哪一种,重症患者都会发生呼吸困难、咳嗽、咳痰等症状。如果护理措施护理得当,患者会缓解呼吸困难导致的缺氧状态,咳嗽症状也会随着痰液的减少而消失。如果没有得当的护理措施,病情会越来越重,甚至会侵害到其他脏器,导致各脏器的衰竭而死亡。     

不同手术时机对急性肠梗阻患者治疗效果及预后的影响

目的:观察不同手术时机对急性肠梗阻患者治疗效果和预后的影响。方法:选取102例急性肠梗阻患者为研究对象,依据入院顺序将其分为观察组和对照组各51例。对照组在发病48 h后行手术治疗,观察组在发病48 h内行手术治疗。比较两组临床疗效、术后并发症发生率、住院时间、手术恢复时间和肠胃功能恢复时间。结果:两组治疗总有效率及术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后住院时间、术后恢复时间和肠胃功能恢复时间均明显短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:不同手术时机治疗急性肠梗阻均有效果,临床可根据患者的病情变化,结合其发病史及相应的医学检查结果,选择合适的手术治疗时机;尽快手术可以明显缩短患者术后肠胃功能恢复时间,改善预后。     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.