引流管综合护理干预对食管癌术后康复的影响

目的：观察引流管综合护理干预对食管癌术后康复的影响。方法选择2012年1~12月湖州师范学院附属第一医院收治的99例食管癌手术患者，将其分成实验组（45例）和对照组（44例），对照组给予引流管常规护理，实验组给予引流管综合护理。比较分析两组患者拔管时间、院内治疗情况、心理健康程度以及护理满意度。结果经统计分析，实验组患者的平均拔管时间为（4±1）d，对照组患者的平均拔管时间为（5±1）d，实验组略少于对照组，差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）；实验组患者的平均住院时间为（14.8±1.9）d，对照组患者平均住院时间为（15.2±1.7）d，两组差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）；实验组患者13例出现肺部炎症，12例出现肺不张，对照组20例出现肺部炎症，19例出现肺不张，两组组间比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）；干预前后两组患者焦虑自评量表（SAS）评分和抑郁自评量表（SDS）评分均有不同程度的改善（均P〈0.01），干预后实验组改善更为明显，差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05或P〈0.01）；在引流管知晓度方面，实验组明显优于对照组，两组组间比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05），在护理满意度方面，实验组略优于对照组，两组组间比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论食管癌术后胸腔引流管综合护理，可以有效避免并发症的发生，有效提高疾病的治疗效果与护理质量。

Effect of drainage tube comprehensive nursing intervention on esophageal postoperative rehabilitation

Objective To observe the effect of drainage tube comprehensive nursing intervention on esophageal postop-erative rehabilitation. Methods 99 cases of esophageal patients were selected in the First Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou Teachers College from January 2012 to December 2012, and were divided into two group, experiment group were 45 cases, control group were 44 cases, control group were treated by normal nursing methods, experiment group were treated by drainage tube comprehensive nursing intervention, and the two groups’extubation time, hospital treatment, mental health and nursing satisfaction degree were compared. Results By the statistical analysis, the average extubation time of experiment group was （4±1） d, which was better than the control group （5±1）d], but the difference was not signif-icant （P〉0.05）;the average hospital time in experiment group was （14.8±1.9） d, and the control group was （15.2±1.7） d, the difference was not significant （P〉0.05）;the number of lung verification was 13 cases and the number of lung in-flammation was 12 cases in the experiment group, the number of lung verification was 20 cases and the number of lung inflammation was 19 cases in control group, the difference was significant （P 〈 0.05）; the self-evaluation of anxiety scale （SAS） score and depression self rating scale （SDS） score in two groups of patients before and after the intervention all had different degrees of improvement （all P〈0.01）, and the intervention group after the intervention improved more obviously, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05 or P〈0.01）; the drainage tube knowledge in the experi-ment group was better than that in control group, and the difference was significant （P〈0.05）;the nursing satisfaction in the experiment group was better than that in control group, but the difference was not significant （P〉 0.05）. Con-clusion Drainage tube comprehensive nursing intervention can effectively prevent the occurrence of c