摘要
目的:对比研究鼻咽及口咽通气道对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征(OSAHS)患者多平面术后缓解上气道阻塞的作用,观察患者的生命指征,探讨鼻咽及口咽通气道的临床应用价值及可靠性。方法:鼻咽通气道组为56例经PSG确诊为重度OSAHS的患者,术后置鼻咽通气道。口咽通气道组为45例经PSG确诊为重度的OSAHS患者,术后置口咽通气道,其余治疗2组相同。2组患者术后行心电、血氧饱和度和血流动力学监测。比较2组患者术后24h内的呼吸困难、最低血氧饱和度、血流动力学、咽部疼痛不适情况。结果:多平面术后24h内,鼻咽通气道组患者血流动力学指标HR(82.3±2.65)次/min、SBP(124.5±13.95)mmHg、DBP(76.2±8.1)mmHg、RPP(10 282.0±1 481.7),口咽通气道组患者血流动力学指标HR(93.4±2.89)次/min、SBP(135.1±16.5)mmHg、DBP(92.25±11.25)mmHg、RPP(12 664.4±1 936.3),两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);咽部疼痛鼻咽通气道组(1.71±0.45)分,口咽通气道组(3±0)分,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);呼吸困难鼻咽通气道组0分,口咽通气道组0分,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);最低血氧饱和度鼻咽通气道组(95.2±1.6)%,口咽通气道组(95.41±1.34)%,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术前及术后24h同组患者间在血流动力学指标(HR、SBP、DBP、RPP)、咽部疼痛、最低血氧饱和度差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:鼻咽和口咽通气管在重度OSAHS患者同期多平面术后呼吸道管理方面均能很好的解除上气道梗阻。但鼻咽通气管具有更好的血液动力学稳定性及耐受性,减少患者的痛苦,增加了依从性和安全性,是一种更安全、微创、有效方法。
Objective： To compare the mitigation role of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway in obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome（OSAHS） patients with upper airway obstruction after multiple plane operation.Observed parameters included life quality,the clinical value and reliability of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal airway. Method： The nasopharyngeal airway group,56 patients with PSG in patients diagnosed with severe OSAHS,after setting nasopharyngeal airway.Oropharyngeal airway group,45 cases of OSAHS by PSG confirmed severe patients home after oropharyngeal airway,the same as the other treatment groups.Line postoperative ECG,oxygen saturation and hemodynamic monitoring.Two groups were compared in 24 h breathing difficulties,low oxygen saturation,hemodynamics,pharyngeal pain and discomfort of the situation. Result： The multi-plane after 24 h,the nasopharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR（82.3±2.65）times/min,SBP（124.5±13.95）mmHg,DBP（76.2±8.1） mmHg,RPP（10282.0±1481.7）,port pharyngeal airway in patients hemodynamics HR（93.4±2.89）times/min,SBP（135.1±16.5）mmHg,DBP（92.25±11.25）mmHg.There was significant difference between the two group（P0.05）;pharyngeal pain nasopharyngeal airway group（1.71±0.45） points,oropharyngeal airway group（3±0） points,there was significant difference between the two（P0.05）;nasopharyngeal airway breathing difficulties Group 0,0 oropharyngeal airway group,no significant difference between the two（P0.05）;the lowest oxygen saturation nasopharyngeal airway group（95.2±1.6）%,oropharyngeal airway group（95.41±1.34）%, no significant difference between the two（P0.05）.24 h before and after
出处
《临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2011年第18期830-833,共4页
Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head And Neck Surgery
基金
四川省科技厅资助项目(No:09-06-0701077)
