普外科术后两种引流方式效果的比较及护理

目的:评价普外科术后引流管道采用负压吸引引流方式与虹吸引流方式的临床效果。方法:抽取500例普外科术后患者,随机分为试验组和对照组,试验组采用虹吸方式引流,对照组采用负压方式引流,观察总引流量,持续引流时间,引流管堵塞情况等指标。结果:试验组术后总引流量与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),持续引流时间与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后并发症与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但引流管堵塞情况明显少于对照组(P<0.01),相关治疗费用明显低于对照组(P<0.01)。结论:普外科术后采用负压引流方式与虹吸引流方式效果相同,但虹吸引流方式操作简单、费用低廉、便于观察及护理,更适合于临床工作。

Nursing care and comparison of the effect of two kind of drainage mode of general surgery

Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of drainage tube using siphonage drainage mode and negative pressure drainage mode.Methods We random selected 500 patientes of general surgery which had drainage tube for draining,the patientes had been divided into test group which used siphonage drainage mode and control group which used negative pressure drainage mode.We observed the total quantity of drainage,the total time of drainage,and the clogging frequency of drainage of the two groups.Results There was no statistical difference of total quantity of drainage between test group and control group（P0.05）.There was no statistical difference of total time of drainage between test group and control group（P0.05）.There was no statistical difference of postoperative complications between test group and control group（P 0.05）.But There were statistical difference of the clogging frequency and the cost between test group and control group（P0.01）.Conclusion Using the two kind of drainage mode in general surgery had the same effect,but the siphonage drainage mode was easier and cheaper than the negative pressure drainage mode,so it was better for clinical work.