论文部分内容阅读
目的通过对两种腹腔热灌注治疗(CHPPC)所产生的不良反应的对比研究,观察哪种热灌注方式更有利于腹腔热灌注化疗的实施及疗效的发挥。方法通过对两组胃癌T4期患者采用不同热灌注间隔时间进行治疗,观察胃肠道反应、腹痛、电解质紊乱、骨髓抑制四项不良反应发生率及患者可耐受400 ml/min流量的灌注次数进行统计学比较,了解两种热灌注方式的优劣。结果两种治疗方案不良反应发生率无统计学意义,但间隔24 h组患者可耐受400 ml/min灌注流量次数,较间隔48 h组多且具有统计学意义。结论术后早期热灌注治疗间隔24 h进行,在不增加不良反应前提下,增加了有效灌注次数,对于有效的发挥腹腔热灌注的疗效具有优势。
Objective To compare the adverse reactions caused by two kinds of intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion (CHPPC) and observe which kind of thermal perfusion method is more conducive to the implementation of intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion chemotherapy and the exertion of curative effect. Methods T4 patients with gastric cancer were treated with different times of hot perfusion. The incidences of four adverse reactions including gastrointestinal reaction, abdominal pain, electrolyte disturbance and myelosuppression were observed, and the patients could tolerate 400 ml/min flow rate of perfusion. Perform a statistical comparison to understand the pros and cons of the two hot perfusion methods. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two treatment regimens, but patients in the 24-hour group could tolerate 400 ml/min perfusion flow times, which was more significant than the interval of 48 h. Conclusions The early postoperative thermal infusion treatment was performed at intervals of 24 hours. Without increasing adverse reactions, the number of effective perfusions was increased, which has an advantage in effectively exerting the therapeutic effects of abdominal perfusion.