钬激光碎石取石术治疗泌尿结石的围术期护理效果评价分析.docx

钬激光碎石取石术治疗泌尿结石的围术期护理效果评价分析 卜晓慧 石岩【摘 要】目的：探討钬激光碎石取石术治疗泌尿结石的围术期护理效果评价分析。方法：选取从2019年3月至2020年3月行钬激光碎石取石术治疗的泌尿结石患者120例作为本次调查研究对象，随机分为对照组与观察组，60例/组。在整个围术期予以不同护理方案干预，对照组患者采取常规护理内容，观察组患者则在围术期介入综合性护理干预，比较两组患者护理后各项指标变化、不良反应发生情况及患者护理后满意度。结果：所有患者在实施不同护理方案后均发生不良反应情况，观察组发生血尿、感染、输尿管穿孔等不良反应率为16.67%，明显低于对照组不良反应发生率40%;对比和分析两组患者的护理满意度，对照组患者为70%，观察组患者为90%;与此同时，两组患者护理后在收缩压、舒张压和心率的平均指标中，观察组患者分别为96.225.37 mmHg、123.486.06 mmHg和88.252.58次/min，明显优于对照组患者的104.585.17mmHg、142.744.54和105.234.11，以上各组数据，纳入统计学分析后得知，均表现为差异明显，具有统计学意义（P0.05）。结论：针对性钬激光碎石取石术的泌尿结石患者采取综合性的护理干预，有效的减少患者在围术期的不良反应发生，稳定了患者各项临床指标，有利于患者术后快速康复，对患者的生活质量提升具有积极影响，提倡在今后钬激光碎石取石术的护理中予以优先选用。【关键词】钬激光碎石取石术;泌尿结石;围术期护理;综合性护理;临床效果。R333.4+3 A 1672-3783（2020）08-0033-02【Abstract】 Objective： To explore the evaluation and analysis of perioperative nursing effect of holmium laser lithotripsy for urinary calculi. Methods： 120 patients with urinary stones treated with holmium laser lithotripsy from March 2019 to March 2020 were selected as the subjects of this investigation and randomly divided into a control group and an observation group， 60 cases/group. Different nursing programs were intervened throughout the perioperative period. The patients in the control group took routine care， and the patients in the observation group were intervened in the comprehensive nursing intervention during the perioperative period， comparing the changes in indicators， the incidence of adverse reactions and the patients after nursing between the two groups. Satisfaction after care. Results： All patients had adverse reactions after implementing different nursing programs. The incidence of adverse reactions such as hematuria， infection， and ureteral perforation in the observation group was 16.67%， which was significantly lower than the incidence of adverse reactions in the control group， 40%. Compare and analyze the two groups The patients nursing satisfaction was 70% in the control group and 90% in the observation group. At the same time， in the average indexes of systolic blood pressure， diastolic blood pressure and heart rate， the observation group patients were 96.225.37 after care. mmHg， 123.486.06 mmHg and 88.252.58 times/min， significantly better than 104.585.17mmHg， 142.744.54 and 105.234.11 of the control group. The data of the above groups， after being included in the statistical analysis， are all shown as The difference is obvious and statistically significant （P