小口径引流导管行肋间插管术治疗原发性自发性气胸的临床研究

樊建勇，秦燕，杨玉东，王祥，邵杰，岳秀，许群涛，唐青

（兵器工业521 医院，陕西 西安，710065）

浏览次数：107次 下载次数：387次

摘要：

目的 比较胸腔穿刺抽气与小口径引流导管行肋间插管术治疗原发性自发性气胸（PSP）的效果，以探索临床治疗PSP 更 为可靠的方法。方法 回顾我院收治的PSP 患者98 例，分为试验组（n=51，小口径引流导管行肋间插管术）和对照组（n=47，胸腔 穿刺抽气）。比较两组患者的疗效。结果 两组患者3 d 成功率及平均住院时间比较，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。试验组1 周 复发率及不良反应发生率均明显低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 小口径引流导管行肋间插管术治疗PSP 效果 与胸腔穿刺抽气法效果相当，但前者的不良反应发生率低、1 周复发率少，可作为临床中治疗PSP 的首选方法。

关键词：原发性自发性气胸；小口径引流导管行肋间插管术；穿刺抽气

中图分类号：R655文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2018)03-0071-02

Clinical study of small-bore drainage catheter intercostal catheterization in the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax
FAN Jian-yong, QIN Yan, YANG Yu-dong, WANG Xiang, SHAO Jie, YUE Xiu，XU Qun-tao, TANG Qing


(Weapon Industry 521 Hospital, Xi``an 710065, China）

ABSTRACT: Objective To compare the effects of thoracentesis and small-bore drainage catheter intercostal catheterization in the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) and explore a more reliable method for the treatment of PSP in clinic. Methods A total of 98 patients with PSP admitted in our hospital were retrospectively divided into experimental group (n=51, with small-bore drainage catheter intercostal cannulation) and control group (n=47, with thoracentesis). The efficacy of the two groups was compared. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in 3-day success rate and average length of stay (P>0.05). The recurrence rate of 1 week and the incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The effects of small-bore drainage catheter intercostal catheterization and thoracentesis in the treatment of PSP are quite, however, the former has a lower incidence of adverse reactions and a smaller recurrence rate within 1 week, which can be used as the first choice for the treatment of PSP in clinic.
KEYWORDS: PSP; small-bore drainage catheter intercostal catheterization; thoracentesis

参考文献：
[1] MACDUFF A ,ARNOLD A,HARVEY J.Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010[J].Thorax,2010,65 Suppl 2(5):ii18-ii31.
[2] ASHBY M,HAUG G,MULCAHY P,et al.Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults[J].Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2014,18(12):CD010565.
[3] BAUMANN MH,STRANGE C,HEFFNER JE,et al.Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement[J].Chest,2001,119(2):590-602.
[4] CAKMAK M,YUKSEL M,KANDEMIR MN.Characteristics of the patients undergoing surgical treatment for pneumothorax: a descriptive study[J].J Pak Med Assoc,2016,66(5):554-558.
[5] OLESEN WH,LINDAHL-JACOBSEN R,KATBALLE N,et al.Recurrent primary spontaneous pneumothorax is common following chest tube and conservative treatment[J].World J Surg,2016,40(9):2163-2170.
[6] WOO WG,JOO S,LEE GD,et al.Outpatient treatment for pneumothorax using a portable small-bore chest tube: a clinical report[J].Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg,2016,49(3):185-189.
[7] KURIHARA M,KATAOKA H,ISHIKAWA A,et al.Latest treatments for spontaneous pneumothorax[J].Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg,2010, 58(3):113-119.
[8] ARSHAD H,YOUNG M,ADURTY R,et al.Acute pneumothorax [J]. Crit Care Nurs Q,2016,39(2):176-189.
[9] SOUSA I,ABRANTES P,FRANCISCO V,et al.Multicentric genome-wide association study for primary spontaneous pneumothorax [J]. PLoS One.2016,11(5):e0156103.