【摘要】目的探讨喉癌手术后患者对两种不同雾化方式的耐受性,为选择最佳雾化方式提供参考。方法将49例喉癌手术后患者随机分为观察组(25例)和对照组(24例),观察组采用氧气雾化吸入,对照组采用空气压缩泵雾化吸入。分别记录两组患者雾化吸入前及吸入15 min时脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)及心率;雾化过程中患者有无心慌、气紧等不适以及雾化后痰液的性质及量。采用SPSS 13.0软件进行统计分析。结果两组患者雾化吸入15 min时的SpO2差异有统计学意义(Plt;001),观察组高于对照组;而两组患者雾化吸入前SpO2、心率、不适主诉及雾化后痰液的性质差异均无统计学意义(Pgt;005)。结论氧气雾化吸入可以提高喉癌手术后患者雾化过程中的SpO2,使患者感觉更加舒适。【Abstract】Objective To investigate postoperative patients with laryngeal carcinoma atomization of two different forms of tolerance, in order to choose the best means of atomization. Methods Fifty postoperative patients with laryngeal carcinoma were divided into observation group using oxygen inhalation and control group using the air compression pump inhalation. Two groups of patients were recorded the value of SpO2 and heart rate before 15 minutes after the inhalation,as well as the discomforts such as flustered,gas tight during the atomization process and the nature and olume of sputum. Results The results of two groups of patients at the time of 15 minutes inhalation SpO2 statistically significant difference (Plt;001), the observation group than in the control group average SpO2 high; and two groups of patients with preinhalation SpO2 average, average heart rate, Discomfort chief complaint and the nature of sputum after aerosol compared no significant difference (Pgt;005). Conclusion Oxygen inhalation in patients with laryngeal cancer can improve the atomization process SpO2 value, so that patients feel more comfortable.
Objective To compare the application effects of two kinds of oxygen and nebulizer inhalation devices applied to patients undergoing partial hepatectomy, with a view to providing reference for clinical selection oxygen and nebulizer inhalation modality. Methods A prospective case-control study was used to select 228 patients who required oxygen inhalation and nebulization after hepatectomy under general anesthesia in the Department of Liver Surgery of West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January to December 2022 as study subjects, and were randomly divided into two groups: grouping group (n=77) and integrating group (n=151). The traditional oxygen inhalation device and atomization device (grouping oxygen inhalation atomization device) commonly used in clinic were used in the grouping group, and the humidifying bottle and humidifying water were replaced every 24 hours. The integrating group adopts a new device (integrated oxygen atomization inhalation device) which integrates oxygen inhalation and atomization functions. The integrating group was divided into integrating group 1 (n=77) and integrating group 2 (n=74) according to the different time of changing the humidifying bottle and humidifying water. The time for replacing the humidifying bottle and humidifying water in the integrating 1 was the same as that in the grouping group. The time for replacing the humidifying bottle and humidifying water in the integrating group 2 was 48 h after used, and replace again it after 72 hours of used. Samples from different parts of the grouping group and the integrating group 1 were collected at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h and 120 h after oxygen inhalation, respectively, for colony culture. In the integrating group 2, samples were taken for colony culture when the device was changed twice (48 h and 120 h). At the same time, the nurses’ fogging operation time and the fogging noise of the two groups were measured. The self-made patients’ satisfaction questionnaire and nurses’ questionnaire were used to investigate the satisfaction of two groups of patients and 30 medical staff respectively. Results There were no statistically significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between the grouping group and the integrating group 1 at different time periods and between the two groups at the same time (P＞0.05). In terms of atomization performance, atomization noise in the integrating group was lower than that of the grouping group (P＜0.05), and the atomization preparation and disposal time in the integrating group were shorter than that of the grouping group (P＜0.05). The patients and nurses were more satisfied with the integrating group (P＜0.05). Conclusions There is no difference in pollution risk between the integrated oxygen atomization bottle and the grouped oxygen atomization bottle. The atomization performance and humidification performance of the integrated oxygen atomization bottle are better than that of the grouped oxygen atomization bottle. The noise generated during operation is small, the comfort of patients is high, and the operation time of nurses can be shortened and the work efficiency can be improved, which has high clinical application value.