三种不同数量侧孔引流管胸腔引流效果的比较

Comparison of three kinds of different number of side holes of the drainage tube drainage effect

目的探讨不同数量侧孔的胸腔引流管在胸腔闭式引流术中的引流效果。方法将360例患者分成三组:A组用单侧孔引流管;B组用双侧孔引流管;C组用三侧孔引流管;术后观察三组的引流时间、引流量、引流液性状、引流管阻塞、引流管顶压肺脏、引流管侧孔外露或侧孔脱至胸壁内、有否包裹性液气胸。结果三组患者的引流量和引流带管时间对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后并发症发生率:单侧孔组为22.5%,双侧孔组为10.0%,三侧孔组为20.0%。A组与B组的并发症发生率比较,B组与C组的并发症发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(PA-B<0.05,PB-C<0.05)。结论术后胸腔闭式引流用双侧孔引流管并发症少,较适合用于胸腔闭式引流术。但气胸患者锁中线第二肋间置管用单侧孔胸引管较好,可以减少顶压肺脏,侧孔外露或脱至胸壁等并发症发生。

Objective To investigate the effect of different number of side hole chest tube in the closed thoracic drainage of drainage. Methods A total of 360 patients were divided into three groups： group A with unilateral drainage holes; group B with bilateral drainage holes; C group with three side holes of the drainage tube; observed of drainage, drainage, drainage, drainage tube obstruction traits, drainage pipe jacking lung, drainage tube side hole was exposed or side hole off to the chest wall, or encapsulated liquid pneumothorax after operation. Results The drainage voIume of three groups of patients with tube and drainage time comparison with no significant difference（P 〉 0.05）. Unilateral hole group was 22.5%, bilateral hole group was 10.0%, three side hole group 20.0%. The occurrence of A group and B group complications rate between B group and C group, the complication rate were significantly different （P_A-B〈0.05, P_B-C〈0.05）. Conclusion Closed thoracic drainage of bilateral drainage holes less complications conclusion after operation, and is suitable for the closed thoracic drainage, but patients with pneumothorax lock line second intercostal tube hole arranged unilateral chest tube is better, can reduce the pressure on the top of the lungs, side hole is exposed to the chest wall or removal of complications such as.