摘要
目的探讨经皮主动脉腔内修复术治疗主动脉夹层的临床效果。方法选取本院2014年1月～2016年1月收治的136例主动脉夹层患者作为研究对象,随机分为观察组和对照组,各68例。观察组采用经皮穿刺入路主动脉腔内隔绝术治疗,对照组采用经股动脉切开路径进行的主动脉腔内隔绝术治疗,比较不同入路主动脉腔内修复术的临床效果。结果观察组的手术成功率为100.0%,对照组的手术成功率为98.5%,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。观察组的局部并发症发生率为2.94%,显著低于对照组的11.76%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。观察组的手术时间、术后住院时间显著短于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论对主动脉夹层患者应用腔内修复术方法治疗,不同入路方式的效果存在一定差异,但总体治疗效果相近,本研究中的经皮穿刺入路效果稍优于股动脉切开术路径的腔内修复术。
Objective To explore the clinical effect of percutaneous aortic endovascular repair in the treatment of aortic dissection.Methods 136 cases of aortic dissection in our hospital from January 2014 to January 2016 were selected and randomly divided into the observation group and the control group,68 cases in each group.The observation group was treated with the percutaneous puncture approach to aortic endovascular isolation therapy,the control group was treated with the femoral artery incision approach to aortic endovascular therapy.The clinical effect of different approaches to endovascular aortic repair was compared.Results The operation success rate of the observation group was 100.0%,the operation success rate of the control group was 98.5%,there was no significant difference（P〉0.05）.The incidence rate of local complication in the observation group was 2.94%,which was lower than 11.76% in the control group,with significant difference（P〈0.05）.The operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the observation group was shorter than that in the control group,with significant difference（P〈0.05）.Conclusion For aortic dissection patients treated with aortic endovascular repair,using different approaches,the effect has some differences,but the overall treatment effect is similar.In this study,the effect of percutaneous puncture approach is slightly better than that of the endovascular repair of femoral artery incision.
出处
《中国当代医药》
2016年第16期53-55,共3页
China Modern Medicine
关键词
主动脉夹层
腔内修复术
临床效果
Aortic dissection
Endovascular repair
Clinical effect
