不同麻醉方式下超声支气管针吸活检术效果比较

发布时间：2018-03-03 15:36

本文选题：麻醉方式　切入点：局麻　出处：《齐鲁护理杂志》2016年16期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的:探讨不同麻醉方式下超声支气管针吸活检术(EBUS-TBNA)麻醉效果的差异,寻找临床实用的快捷、方便、安全的麻醉方法。方法:将2015年3~10月内镜科就诊的100例EBUS-TBNA治疗的患者随机分为对照组和实验组各50例,在优质护理服务下,对照组采用全麻或基础麻醉方式进行检查,实验组采用局麻方式进行检查,比较两组检查过程中心率、血压、血氧饱和度及检查时间。结果:100例患者均顺利成功完成检查,且无并发症发生;两组收缩压比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),两组心率、舒张压、血氧饱和度及检查时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:EBUS-TBNA并非一定需要在全麻或基础麻醉下进行,局麻条件下进行穿刺节省了人力物力及患者治疗费用;同时局麻过程简便、安全,节省了麻醉时间和苏醒时间,值得临床推广应用。
[Abstract]:Objective: to explore the different anesthetic effects of EBUS-TBNAA under different anesthetic methods, and to find out the quickness and convenience of clinical practice. Methods: 100 patients treated with EBUS-TBNA from 2015 to October were randomly divided into two groups: control group (n = 50) and experimental group (n = 50). Under the high quality nursing service, the control group was examined by general anesthesia or basic anesthesia. The heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation and examination time were compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between the two groups (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation and examination time between the two groups. Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA does not necessarily need to be performed under general anesthesia or basic anesthesia. The puncture under local anesthesia can save manpower and material resources and the cost of treatment, and the procedure of local anesthesia is simple, safe, and saves the time of anaesthesia and recovery, so it is worth popularizing and applying in clinic.
【作者单位】：山东省肿瘤医院;
【分类号】：R473.6

【相似文献】