摘要
目的 探讨在改良塞丁格法穿刺失败后,采用安全型留置针代替塞丁格穿刺针进行穿刺的可行性.方法 将改良塞丁格法穿刺失败的35例患者随机分为传统组（18例）和替代组（17例）,分别运用改良塞丁格穿刺法和安全型留置针进行再穿刺,同时将一次穿刺成功患者设立为对照组（20例）.比较3组间的穿刺出血量、穿刺时间、静脉炎的发生率和费用的差异.结果 传统组和替代组的穿刺出血量多于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,传统组和替代组之间的差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.传统组和替代组的操作时间均明显较对照组增加（P〈0.01）,但传统组操作时间与替代组相比,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.3组静脉炎的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.传统组的费用明显高于对照组和替代组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）.结论 改良塞丁格法穿刺失败后,采用安全型留置针代替塞丁格穿刺针进行穿刺,不会增加操作时间,而且不增加静脉炎的发生率,也不增加出血量.
Objective To investigate the feasibility of safety vein lienable needle instead of seldinger vein needle when the failure of PICC by MST. Methods 35 patients failed PICC by MST were divided into two groups randomly, Traditional method group： MST; Alternative group： safety lienable needle inserting. 20 patients with puncture success were selected as control group, and the bleeding, puncture time, phlebitis and fees were compared in 3 groups. Results The bleeding in Traditional method group and Alternative group were much more than Control group, the difference was significant （P 〈 0. 01 ） , but the difference between Traditional method group and Alternative group was not significant （P 〉 0. 05 ）. The time of inserting PICC in Traditional method group and Alternative group were much longer than Control group, the difference were significant （P 〈 0. 01 ）, but the difference between Traditional method group and Alternative group was not significant （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. The difference of phlebitis in each group were not significant （P 〉 0. 05）. The fee in Traditional method group was higher than others （P〈0. 01）. Conclusions It could neither increasing the time of PICC, nor the bleeding and phlebitis by using safety lienable needle instead of seldinger needle when the failure PICC by MST.
出处
《中华现代护理杂志》
2011年第9期1099-1101,共3页
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
关键词
安全型留置针
改良塞丁格法
替代方法
Safety vein lienable needle
Modified seldinger technique
Instead ways
