胃修补术三种麻醉的方法效果比较.docVIP

胃修补术三种麻醉的方法效果比较 　　[摘要] 目的 探讨胃修补术三种麻醉方法比较。 方法 选取2009年1月~2011年6月我院收治的胃穿孔患者共150例，随机分为三组，其中组一采用气管插管全麻，组二采用二点法腰硬联合＋强化，组三采用硬膜外麻＋强化。 结果 三组患者在手术开始、手术结束的疼痛程度均低，与组二、三比较，组一术后2 h疼痛最大（q = 3.68、3.91，P ＜ 0.05）；组一患者出现的麻醉完全率高于组二、组三（q = 5.27、5.02，P ＜ 0.05）；三组患者的麻醉时间、肌松程度差异均有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）；组二患者术中MAP和HR均明显低于组一和组三（P ＜ 0.05）；三组患者术中出血量差异无统计学意义（q = 0.73、0.68，P ＞ 0.05），而组一平均住院费用明显较高（q = 11.67、6.81，P ＜ 0.05）。 结论 本研究初步探讨了胃修补术三种麻醉方法比较，认为采用气管插管全麻方式较优，但费用较高。 　　[关键词] 胃修补术；麻醉；效果 　　[中图分类号] R619 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1673-7210（2012）01（c）-0087-02 　　 　　The effect comparison of three anaesthesia methods for gastrorrhaphy 　　ZHONG Guihong ZHAO Yizhang LI Yuanfeng 　　Qiaotou Hospital of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, Dongguan 523523, China 　　[Abstract] Objective To discuss the comparison of three anaesthesia methods for gastrorrhaphy. Methods 150 patients of gastric perforation in our hospital from January 2009 to June 2011 were divided into three groups randomly. The group one was taken trachea cannula and general anaesthesia, the group two was taken two-point method with CSEA and reinforcement, while the group three was taken epidural anesthesia and reinforcement. Results The pain of 3 groups at the beginning or end of operation was lower, but compared with group two and three, two hours after operation in group one was most (q = 3.68, 3.91, P ＜ 0.05). The anaesthesia complete rate of group one was higher than group two and three (q = 5.27, 5.02, P ＜ 0.05). The anaesthesia time and muscular relaxation degree of 3 groups had significant differences (P ＜ 0.05). The procedural MAP and HR of group two were lower than group two and three (P ＜ 0.05). The diverse of procedural amount of bleeding of three groups had no significant differences (q = 0.73, 0.68, P ＞ 0.05). The average maintenance charge of group one was higher (q = 11.67, 6.81, P ＜ 0.05). Conclusion This research discuss the comparison of three kinds of anaesthesia methods for gastrorrhaphy, in opinion of which, the trachea cannula and gen