[精品]不同術(shù)式治療急性胃穿孔的臨床效果觀察

《[精品]不同術(shù)式治療急性胃穿孔的臨床效果觀察》由會員上傳分享，免費在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)內(nèi)容在工程資料-天天文庫。

1、不同術(shù)式治療急性胃穿孔的臨床效果觀察不同術(shù)式治療急性胃穿孔的臨床效果觀察［摘要］目的觀察胃大部分切除術(shù)與單純修補術(shù)治療急性胃穿孔的效果，為急性胃穿孔的臨床治療提供參考。方法選擇2011年1月?2013年1月于河南省封丘縣中醫(yī)院普外科行手術(shù)治療的急性胃穿孔患者48例，根據(jù)采用的術(shù)式不同分為單純修補組和胃大部分切除組，每組各24例。術(shù)后隨訪1年，觀察并比較兩組的治療效果、手術(shù)時間、下床活動時間、胃腸功能恢復(fù)時間及住院時間、并發(fā)癥與復(fù)發(fā)情況。結(jié)果單純修補組的總有效率為95.83%,胃大部分切除組為83.33%,單純修補組的總有效率顯著高于胃大部分切除組，差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(

2、P<0.05)o單純修補組的手術(shù)時間、下床活動時間、胃腸功能恢復(fù)時間及住院時間均較胃大部分切除組短，差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P〈0?05)。兩組并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P〉0.05)o單純修補組的復(fù)發(fā)率為8.33%,胃大部分切除組為4.17%,單純修補組的復(fù)發(fā)率高于胃大部分切除組，差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05)o結(jié)論單純修補術(shù)和胃大部分切除術(shù)治療急性胃穿孔均取得一定的效果,口兩種方法各有優(yōu)劣性，臨床中應(yīng)根據(jù)患者的具體情況確定治療方式。［關(guān)鍵詞］急性胃穿孔；胃大部分切除術(shù)；單純修補術(shù)［中圖分類號］R573［文獻標識碼］A［文章編號］1674-4721(2014)08

3、(b)-0033-03［Abstract］ObjectiveToobservetheeffectofpartialgastrectomyandsimpleperforationrepairinthetreatmentofacutegastricperforation,inordertoprovidearefereneeforgastricperforationclinicaltreatment.Methods48patientswithacutegastricperforationgivenoperativetreatmentinDepartmentofGenera

4、lSurgery,hospitalofTraditionalChineseMedicineofFengqiuCountyinHenanProvincewereselected?Accordingtothesurgicalmethod,patientsweredividedintothesimpleperforationrepairgroupandpartialgastrectomygroup,whichgivensimpleperforationrepairtreatmentandpartialgastrectomytreatmentrespectively,eac

5、hgrouphad24cases.Allpatienswerefollow-upfor1year.Thetherapeuticeffect,durationofoperation,ambulationtime,gastrointestinalfunctionrecoverytime,hospitalstays,complicationsandrecurrencewereobservedandcomparedbetweenthetwogroups?ResultsThetotaleffectiverateofthesimpleperforationrepairgroup

6、was95.83%,whichofthepartialgastrectomygroupwas83.33%,thesimpleperforationrepairgroupwashigherthanthepartialgastrectomygroup,thedifferencewasstatisticallysignificant(P<0.05)?Thedurationofoperation,ambulationtime,gastrointestinalfunctionrecoverytime,hospitalstaysinthesimpleperforationrep

7、airgroupwereshorterthanthoseinthepartialgastrectomygroup,thedifferenceswerestatisticallysignificant(P<0.05)?Thecomplicationrateofthetwogroupshadnosignificantdifferences(P>0.05)?Therecurrencerateinthesimpleperforationrepairgroupwas8.33%,whichwashigherthanthatinthepartialgastrectomygro