小儿肠套叠空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位的对比分析
|
摘要
目的探析空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位在小儿肠套叠治疗上的应用效果。方法回顾性分析2017年9月—2018年11月在该院接受非手术治疗的589例肠套叠患儿,其中观察组X线空气灌肠病例464例,对照组水压灌肠病例125例,比较两组的复位成功率、复位时间、并发症发生率、住院时长、复发率等指标。结果观察组患者的复位成功率略高于对照组,两组数据分别为95.69%、92.00%,但差异无统计学意义(χ~2=2.773,P=0.096);观察组患者的复位时间明显短于对照组,两组的时间指标分别为(5.74±2.63)min、(8.58±3.79)min,差异有统计学差异(t=7.882,P=0.000);两组患儿的并发症发生率无统计学差异,两组数据分别为0.011%、0.024%,差异有统计学意义(χ~2=1.285,P=0.257),两组患儿的住院时间长短无显著性差异,两组的住院时间指标分别为(3.22±0.58)d、(3.35±0.71)d,差异有统计学意义(t=1.831,P=0.068);经随访,两组患儿复发率的差异无统计学意义,观察组与对照组的复发率分别为12.07%、12.96%,差异有统计学意义(χ~2=0.062,P=0.804)。结论小儿肠套叠治疗上,空气灌肠和水压灌肠两种复位方法均可获得理想的效果,复发率、并发症发生率、住院时间无明显差别,空气灌肠的成功率略高,复位时间更短,操作简便,并发症副作用小。
Objective To investigate the application of air enema and hydrostatic enema in the treatment of infantile intussusception. Methods A retrospective analysis of 589 children with intussusception who underwent non-surgical treatment in our hospital from September 2017 to November 2018, including 464 cases of X-ray air enema in the observation group and125 cases of hydrostatic enema in the control group. The success rate, reset time, complication rate, length of hospital stay,recurrence rate and other indicators of the two groups. Results The success rate of the observation group was slightly higher than that of the control group, and the data of the two groups were 95.69% and 92.0%, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant(χ~2=2.773, P=0.096). The reset time of the observation group was significantly shorter than that of the observation group. In the control group, the time indicators of the two groups were(5.74±2.63) min and(8.58±3.79) min,respectively, and the difference was statistically significant,the difference was statistically significant,the difference was statistically significant(t=7.882, P=0.000). There was no statistical analysis of the complication rate in the two groups. The difference between the two groups was 0.011% and 0.024%(χ~2=1.285, P=0.257). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups. The hospitalization time index of the two groups was(3.22±0.58)d,(3.35±0.71)d(t =1.831, P =0.068); after follow-up, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups. The recurrence rates of the observation group and the control group were 12.07% and 12.96%, respectively,the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=0.062, P=0.804). Conclusion In the treatment of infantile intussusception, both air enema and hydrostatic enema can achieve the desired effect. There is no significant difference in recurrence rate, complication rate and hospitalization time. The success rate of air enema is slightly higher, and the reset time is shorter, easy to operate, with few side effects of complications.
Objective To investigate the application of air enema and hydrostatic enema in the treatment of infantile intussusception. Methods A retrospective analysis of 589 children with intussusception who underwent non-surgical treatment in our hospital from September 2017 to November 2018, including 464 cases of X-ray air enema in the observation group and125 cases of hydrostatic enema in the control group. The success rate, reset time, complication rate, length of hospital stay,recurrence rate and other indicators of the two groups. Results The success rate of the observation group was slightly higher than that of the control group, and the data of the two groups were 95.69% and 92.0%, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant(χ~2=2.773, P=0.096). The reset time of the observation group was significantly shorter than that of the observation group. In the control group, the time indicators of the two groups were(5.74±2.63) min and(8.58±3.79) min,respectively, and the difference was statistically significant,the difference was statistically significant,the difference was statistically significant(t=7.882, P=0.000). There was no statistical analysis of the complication rate in the two groups. The difference between the two groups was 0.011% and 0.024%(χ~2=1.285, P=0.257). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups. The hospitalization time index of the two groups was(3.22±0.58)d,(3.35±0.71)d(t =1.831, P =0.068); after follow-up, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups. The recurrence rates of the observation group and the control group were 12.07% and 12.96%, respectively,the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=0.062, P=0.804). Conclusion In the treatment of infantile intussusception, both air enema and hydrostatic enema can achieve the desired effect. There is no significant difference in recurrence rate, complication rate and hospitalization time. The success rate of air enema is slightly higher, and the reset time is shorter, easy to operate, with few side effects of complications.
引文
[1]胡思佳,白玉作.空气灌肠复位与水压灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠研究进展[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2018,17(1):66-72.
[2]孙中洋,徐金标.多种辅助方法在小儿肠套叠空气灌肠复位中的联合应用[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2015,26(4):832-834.
[3]孙清政,付秀婷,张浩然,等.影响急性肠套叠X线下空气灌肠复位相关因素的对比研究[J].腹部外科,2016,29(4):304-309
[4]郭兆坤,周俊,邢辉,等.空气灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠的相关因素分析[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2017,28(1):35-36.
[5]马海峰,董贺龙,周福金,等.小儿肠套叠空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位的对比分析[J].现代医药卫生,2011,27(11):1611-1612.
[6]周光辉.空气灌肠复位和水压灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠的疗效观察[J].中国中医药现代远程教育,2012,10(14):54-55.
[7]潘祝彬,高群,黄河,等.B超监视下水压灌肠与X线下空气灌肠治疗小儿肠套叠的效果比较[J].中国医药导报,2018,15(8):116-119.
[8]宁小龙,刘铭.小儿肠套叠空气灌肠复位成功后早期复发的临床特点分析[J].中国社区医师,2017,33(3):59-60.
[9]刘娇静,侯燕莉,荆长有,等.338例空气灌肠整复治疗小儿肠套叠临床体会[J].锦州医科大学学报,2018,39(1):79-81.
[10]张中全,吕继东,裴茜,等.小儿急性肠套叠空气灌肠整复61例分析及总结[J].影像研究与医学应用,2017,1(11):146-147.
[11]李小卫,伍岗泉,卢应酬,等.空气灌肠在治疗病程超48小时肠套叠患儿的临床应用[J].中国现代药物应用,201711(16):63-64.
[2]孙中洋,徐金标.多种辅助方法在小儿肠套叠空气灌肠复位中的联合应用[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2015,26(4):832-834.
[3]孙清政,付秀婷,张浩然,等.影响急性肠套叠X线下空气灌肠复位相关因素的对比研究[J].腹部外科,2016,29(4):304-309
[4]郭兆坤,周俊,邢辉,等.空气灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠的相关因素分析[J].中国妇幼健康研究,2017,28(1):35-36.
[5]马海峰,董贺龙,周福金,等.小儿肠套叠空气灌肠和水压灌肠复位的对比分析[J].现代医药卫生,2011,27(11):1611-1612.
[6]周光辉.空气灌肠复位和水压灌肠复位治疗小儿肠套叠的疗效观察[J].中国中医药现代远程教育,2012,10(14):54-55.
[7]潘祝彬,高群,黄河,等.B超监视下水压灌肠与X线下空气灌肠治疗小儿肠套叠的效果比较[J].中国医药导报,2018,15(8):116-119.
[8]宁小龙,刘铭.小儿肠套叠空气灌肠复位成功后早期复发的临床特点分析[J].中国社区医师,2017,33(3):59-60.
[9]刘娇静,侯燕莉,荆长有,等.338例空气灌肠整复治疗小儿肠套叠临床体会[J].锦州医科大学学报,2018,39(1):79-81.
[10]张中全,吕继东,裴茜,等.小儿急性肠套叠空气灌肠整复61例分析及总结[J].影像研究与医学应用,2017,1(11):146-147.
[11]李小卫,伍岗泉,卢应酬,等.空气灌肠在治疗病程超48小时肠套叠患儿的临床应用[J].中国现代药物应用,201711(16):63-64.