【摘要】目的：比较2种尿动力学测压导管的效果。 方法: 对60例下尿路功能障碍的女性患者行尿动力学检查，其中30例行侧孔灌注导管测量，30例行TDOC导管测量，对2种测压管的效果进行比较。 结果：侧孔灌注导管消毒插管3～5min，平均4min，全过程20～40min，平均33min，检查后5例患者出现全身发热症状;TDOC导管消毒插管2～4min，平均3min，全过程15～35min，平均27min，检查后未出现尿路感染并发症。 结论:侧孔灌注导管和TDOC导管均是较理想的尿动力学测压导管，TDOC导管具有相对简单、检查后尿路感染发生率低的优点。
【关键词】 尿动力学;测压导管;下尿路功能障碍;感染
Comparative evaluation of two kinds of urodynamic catheters
LIU Zhengqing， GUO Lili， YAO Qisheng， YANG Yong
(Department of Urology， Taihe Hospital Affiliated to Yunyang Medical College Shiyan 442000，China)
[ABSTRACT] Objective: To evaluate and compare two kinds of urodynamic catheters. Methods: Employed urodynamics test to 60 women with lower urinary dysfunction. Thirty patients were examined by catheters of side hole perfusion and the others examined by the TDOC aircharged catheters. The outcome was evaluated and compared urodynamically and clinically. Results: The catheters of side hole perfusion were disinfected for 35 min, averaged 4 min. The whole process lasted 2040 min, averaged 33 min. And 5 cases had fever after examination. While TDOC catheters were sterilized for 24 min, averaged 3 min, with whole process lasting 1535 min, averaged 27 min. And no urinary tract infection occurred after examination. Conclusions: The catheters of side hole perfussion and the TDOC aircharged catheters are effective urodynamic catheters whereas the TDOC aircharged catheters are with more simple operation process and low incidence of urinary tract infection.
[KEY WORDS] Urodynamics; Urodynamic catheters; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Infection
为寻求高质量、可靠的尿动力学结果，我院2008年1月～2009年3月对60例下尿路功能障碍的女性患者进行了尿动力学检查，旨在通过比较2种尿动力学测压导管的尿动力学检查方法，选择一种较佳的尿动力学测压导管。
1 资料与方法
1.1 临床资料
2008年1月～2009年3月，我院对60例下尿路功能障碍的女性患者进行了尿动力学检查。患者年龄31～73岁，平均45岁。其中压力性尿失禁15例、膀胱过度活动症20例、膀胱敏感性增高及膀胱容量偏小10例、下尿路梗阻10例、尿动力学未见异常5例。
1.2 尿动力学检查
均采用Laborie Triton尿动力检测仪。
1.2.1 尿
[1] [2] [3] 下一页
您现在的位置： 绿色健康网 >> 医学论文 >> 外科论文 >> 正文