临床路径模式与传统模式治疗输尿管结石的比较

Comparison and Analysis of Clinical Path Mode with the Traditional Mode of Treatment of Ureteral Calculi

目的引用不同参数比较输尿管结石实施临床路径模式与传统治疗模式的不同及原因分析。方法 164例输尿管结石分四组:A组为临床路径治疗单纯结石,B组为临床路径治疗结石合并其他疾病,C组为传统模式治疗单纯结石,D组为传统模式治疗结石合并其他疾病。全部病例均在各类麻醉下使用输尿管硬镜弹道碎石术。A组56例,B组30例,C组46例,D组32例。采用统计学方法从术前平均住院日、平均住院日、住院总费用、药占比、抗生素比、患者满意度调查等各参数进行比较。结果 A组各指标均优于B、C、D三组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组各指标与C组持平(P>0.05);B、C两组各指标均优于D组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论无合并其他疾病的单纯输尿管中下段结石实施临床路径模式治疗效果较好,总体疗效满意,临床路径模式还需进一步完善。

Objective To compare the differences of ureteral calculus between Implementation of clinical pathway and Traditional treatment mode by different parameter. Methods 164 cases of ureteral stones were divided into four groups： group A is the clinical path treatment of simple calculi, group B is clinical path treatment of calculi with other diseases, group C is the traditional mode of treatment of simple calculi, group D is the traditional mode of treatment of calculi complicated with other diseases. All patients were using nreteroscopic lithotripsy in all kinds of anesthesia. 56 cases in group A, 30 cases in group B, 46 cases in group C, group D of 32 cases. The preoperative waiting to bed days, average hospitalization days, total cost of hospitalization, drug for each parameter ratio, antibiotics, patients satisfaction survey are compared. Results In group A, the indicators are better than group B, C, D, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）; indexes of group B and group C were flat （P〉0.05）; indicators of B, C groups are better than the group D, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The implementation effect of clinical pathway model treatment Without other diseases combined with simple ureteral calculus is good, the overall effect is satisfactory, clinical pathway model still need further perfect.