目的 探讨经皮气管切开术在神经重症患者中应用的临床价值。方法 回顾分析医院2015-01至2018-05收治并行气管切开的69例神经重症病例,按气管切开方式分为经皮扩张气管切开术(percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy,PDT,n=48) 组和常规气管切开(open surgical tracheostomy,ST,n=21)组,比较两组操作时间、血流动力学指标、颅内压(intracranial pressure,ICP)的波动及早期并发症的差异。结果 PDT组手术时间为(7.1±1.5)min,ST组为(13.5±4.9)min,ST组长于PDT组(P<0.05);ICP波动两组差别无统计学意义;血流动力学指标两组差别无临床意义。结论 PDT对神经重症患者的血流动力学及ICP影响较ST无明显差异,操作时间更短,可作为首选气管切开方法。
Abstract
Objective To explore the clinical value of percutaneous tracheostomy in neuro critically ill patients. Methods The clinical data on 69 cases of neurocritical illness admitted to our hospital between January 2015 and May 2018 was retrospectively analyzed. According to treatments, these patients were divided into two groups: the PDT group (percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, n=48) and ST group (open surgical tracheostomy, n=21). The clinical features, duration of surgery , bleeding volume, hemodynamics , intracranial pressure(ICP) and complications were compared between the two groups and statistically analyzed. Results There was significant difference in duration of surgery[(7.1±1.5)min vs. (13.5±4.9)min]between the two groups, but there was no significant difference in intracranial pressure fluctuation or hemodynamic indexes. Conclusions There is no significant difference between ST and PDT in hemodynamics or intracranial pressure among neurocritical patients, but surgery takes less time with PDT. It should be the first option for neurocritical care patients.
关键词
气管切开术 /
危重症 /
血流动力学 /
颅内压
Key words
tracheostomy /
critical illness /
hemodynamics /
intracranial pressure
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] Lerner A D, Yarmus L. Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy [J]. Clin Chest Med, 2018, 39(1): 211-222.
[2] Ciaglia P, Firsching R, Syniec C. Elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. A new simple bedside procedure; preliminary report [J]. Chest, 1985, 87(6): 715-719.
[3] 翟 翔, 张金玲, 何京川, 等. 经皮旋转扩张气管切开术安全性的大宗病例研究 [J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2018, 32(03): 176-178.
[4] Johnson S, Velikovic A, Javidnia H. Complication rates of open surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy in critically ill patients [J]. Laryngoscope, 2016, 126(11): 2459-2467.
[5] Oggiano M, Ewig S, Hecker E. A comparison of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus conventional surgical tracheostomy [J]. Pneumologie, 2014, 68(5): 322-328.
[6] Shathri Z, Susanto I. Percutaneous tracheostomy [J]. Semin Respir Crit Care Med, 2018, 39(6): 720-730.
[7] 郑仕奇, 王 刚, 刘建鑫, 等. 经皮扩张钳与常规气管切开在重症脑血管病患者的应用比较 [J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2012, 6(18): 5701-5702.
[8] 陈 通, 金玉兰, 付爱军, 等. 经皮气管切开术与传统气管切开术在神经重症患者救治中安全性的单中心随机对照研究 [J]. 河北医药, 2014, 36(13):2003-2005.
[9] 熊学辉, 魏小川, 罗 杰, 等. 经皮气管切开术在神经外科急危重症病人中的应用体会 [J]. 中国临床神经外科杂志, 2019, 5(24): 312-313.
[10] Kieninger M, Windorfer M, Eissnert C, et al. Impact of bedside percutaneous dilational and open surgical tracheostomy on intracranial pressure, pulmonary gas exchange, and hemodynamics in neurocritical care patients [J]. Medicine, 2019, 98(35): e17011.
[11] 孙海欣, 王文志. 中国60万人群脑血管病流行病学抽样调查报告 [J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2018, 18(2): 83-88.
[12] Khandelawal A, Kapoor I, Goyal K, et al. Pneumothorax during percutaneous tracheostomy-a brief review of literature on attributable causes and preventable strategies [J]. Anaesthesiology Intensive Ther, 2017, 49(4): 317-319.
[13] UlatowskiN, Karolak W, Los A, et al. Iatrogenic aortic arch injury after unsuccessful percutaneous tracheostomy [J]. Card Surg, 2020, 1(3):1-3.
PDF(582 KB)
