Suppr超能文献

两种术后呼吸护理方法的比较。

Comparison of two methods of postoperative respiratory care.

作者信息

Dohi S, Gold M I

出版信息

Chest. 1978 May;73(5):592-5. doi: 10.1378/chest.73.5.592.

Abstract

After abdominal surgery, 64 patients were managed with one of the following two techniques of respiratory care: (1) deep breathing by way of a new device, an incentive spirometric three-ball, flow-measuring device (Triflo); and (2) standard episodic intermittent positive-pressure breathing (IPPB) every four hours. Both series of patients received therapy with a bronchodilator drug by nebulization. All patients had preoperative spirometric measurements followed by five consecutive days of therapy and spirometry. Chest x-ray films were obtained for all patients. There were no significant differences between the two methods of respiratory care, but 57 percent (17/30) in the group receiving therapy with IPPB developed pneumonia, atelectasis, or bronchitis, while only 29 percent (10/34) did so in the group using the incentive spirometric device (P less than 0.05). Spirometric differences were minimal, although the trend favored the incentive spirometric device. Principal conclusions were as follows: (1) deep breathing under the conditions of this investigation was equal to episodic therapy with IPPB; and (2) from an economic standpoint, IPPB, as it is currently practiced, may be disadvantageous when compared with the incentive spirometric device.

摘要

腹部手术后,64例患者采用以下两种呼吸护理技术之一进行处理:(1)通过一种新装置,即一种激励式肺活量测定三球流量测量装置(Triflo)进行深呼吸;(2)每四小时进行一次标准的间歇性正压呼吸(IPPB)。两组患者均接受雾化吸入支气管扩张药治疗。所有患者术前均进行肺活量测定,随后连续五天接受治疗并进行肺活量测定。所有患者均拍摄胸部X光片。两种呼吸护理方法之间无显著差异,但接受IPPB治疗的组中有57%(17/30)发生肺炎、肺不张或支气管炎,而使用激励式肺活量测定装置的组中只有29%(10/34)发生此类情况(P<0.05)。肺活量测定差异很小,尽管趋势有利于激励式肺活量测定装置。主要结论如下:(1)在本研究条件下,深呼吸与IPPB间歇性治疗效果相当;(2)从经济角度看,目前实施的IPPB与激励式肺活量测定装置相比可能不利。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验