论文部分内容阅读
目的比较限制性和开放性液体复苏方式对泌尿系结石术后相关感染性休克的疗效。方法 18例泌尿系结石术后感染性休克患者分为两组,A组(9例)行限制性液体复苏,B组(9例)行开放性液体复苏。比较两组患者的复苏液体量、术后出血率、复苏时间以及复苏期间心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、中心静脉压(CVP)、每小时尿量和血清肌酐水平。结果 A组患者复苏液体量、术后出血率、复苏时间均低于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者复苏期间HR、MAP、CVP、每小时尿量,组内复苏前后比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),复苏后组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。血清肌酐水平组间、组内复苏前后比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于泌尿系结石术后的感染性休克进行液体复苏时,限制性液体复苏优于传统开放性液体复苏。
Objective To compare the curative effects of restrictive and open liquid resuscitation on septic shock associated with postoperative urolithiasis. Methods 18 patients with septic shock after urolithiasis were divided into two groups: group A (n = 9) received limited fluid resuscitation; group B (n = 9) received open fluid resuscitation. Resuscitation fluid volume, postoperative bleeding rate, recovery time and heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), hourly urine output and serum creatinine were compared between the two groups. Results The volume of fluid resuscitation, the rate of postoperative bleeding and the time of resuscitation in group A were all lower than those in group B, with statistical significance (P <0.05). The HR, MAP, CVP and hourly urine output during resuscitation in both groups were significantly different between before and after resuscitation (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups after resuscitation (P> 0.05). Serum creatinine levels between groups before and after the resuscitation, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusions Resuscitative fluid resuscitation is superior to traditional open fluid resuscitation for fluid resuscitation of septic shock after urolithiasis.