作　　者： (贺英）; (蔡明玉）;

机构地区： 第三军医大学大坪医院野战外科研究所肾内科,重庆400042

出　　处： 《中国血液净化》 2017年第8期571-574,共4页

摘　　要： 目的研究一种新型穿刺止血器的设计与应用及临床实用型。方法采用新型穿刺止血器与传统压迫法,标准法进行3组比较,将3组组间的止血操作时间和脱离次数的数据进行单因素方差分析,进一步的两两比较采用Dunnett-t检验。结果提示压迫脱离次数单因素常规组与创新组(F=7.278,P=0.012)有统计学意义;常规组与标准组(F=7.278,P=0.004)有统计学意义;标准组与创新组(F=7.955,P=0.009)有统计学意义。进一步多重比较Dunnett-t检验的结果显示:常规组与创新组(t_D=-0.125,P=0.487)有统计学意义;标准组与常规组(t_D=-0.061,P=0.022)有统计学意义;创新组与标准组(t_D=0.027,P=0.013)有差异性。同时,与常规组相比,创新组压迫止血所消耗时间减少35.35%。结论创新法压迫用时最少,效率更高,操作更为方便。 Objective To study the design and application of a new puncture and hemostasis device. Method We compared the new puncture and hemostasis device with the conventional compression method and the standard method. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the hemostatic operation time and number of shedding between the 3 types of hemostasis methods. Dunnett-t test was used to compare between two types of methods. Result The number of pressure shedding was statistically significant between new device group and conventional group （F=7.278, P=0.012）, between conventional group and standard group （F= 7.278; P=0.004）, and between new device group and standard group （F=7.955; P=0.009）. Multiple compari- sons using Dunnett-t test showed that there were statistical significances between new device group and con- ventional group （tD=-0.125, P=-0.487）, between conventional group and standard group （tD=-0.061, P=0.022）, and between new device group and standard group （tD=0.027, P=0.013）. Additionally, the hemostatic opera- tion time in new device group reduced by 35.35% as compared with that in conventional group. ConcLusion Our new device is more convenient and efficient for hemostasis with a shorter hemostatic operation time.

关 键 词： 穿刺 护理 压迫止血