Suppr超能文献

使用韦雷氏针与开放技术进行经皮诊断性腹腔灌洗:一项前瞻性随机试验。

Percutaneous diagnostic peritoneal lavage using a Veress needle versus an open technique: a prospective randomized trial.

作者信息

Saunders C J, Battistella F D, Whetzel T P, Stokes R B

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Health System, Sacramento 95817-2214, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma. 1998 May;44(5):883-8. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199805000-00023.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively compare the speed, sensitivity, complications, and technical failures of percutaneous diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) using a Veress needle versus open DPL.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-six blunt trauma patients requiring DPL were prospectively randomized to undergo either open DPL using a standard technique or percutaneous DPL using an 18-gauge Veress needle to penetrate the peritoneal cavity, with the lavage catheter then being inserted over a guide wire.

RESULTS

Mean time to successful placement of the lavage catheter for the percutaneous Veress needle technique was 2.73 minutes versus 7.28 minutes for the open DPL technique (p < 0.001). Sixteen percent of open lavage procedures took more than 11 minutes; the majority (60%) of Veress needle lavage procedures took less than 2 minutes. There were no false-negative findings in either group, and there was one false-positive result in each group. A wound infection after an open DPL was the only complication. Poor return of lavage fluid (<200 mL) accounted for most technical failures; this was more prevalent with the percutaneous method (11.2%) than with the open technique (3.8%) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The percutaneous DPL method using a Veress needle is significantly faster than the open DPL method. The Veress needle lavage was as safe and as sensitive as the open lavage; however, technical failure occurred more frequently with the Veress needle lavage than with the open DPL.

摘要

目的

前瞻性比较使用Veress针进行经皮诊断性腹腔灌洗(DPL)与开放性DPL的速度、敏感性、并发症及技术失败情况。

方法

176例需要进行DPL的钝性创伤患者被前瞻性随机分为两组,一组采用标准技术进行开放性DPL,另一组采用18号Veress针经皮穿刺进入腹腔,然后在导丝引导下插入灌洗导管进行经皮DPL。

结果

经皮Veress针技术成功放置灌洗导管的平均时间为2.73分钟,而开放性DPL技术为7.28分钟(p<0.001)。16%的开放性灌洗操作耗时超过11分钟;大多数(60%)Veress针灌洗操作耗时不到2分钟。两组均无假阴性结果,每组各有1例假阳性结果。开放性DPL术后伤口感染是唯一的并发症。灌洗液体回流量少(<200 mL)是大多数技术失败的原因;经皮方法(11.2%)比开放性技术(3.8%)更常见(p<0.05)。

结论

使用Veress针的经皮DPL方法明显比开放性DPL方法更快。Veress针灌洗与开放性灌洗一样安全且敏感;然而,Veress针灌洗的技术失败比开放性DPL更频繁。

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