口服盐酸利多卡因胶浆联合磷酸钠盐在肠镜检查中的效果观察

柴先灯; 李伦兰; 杨桂芳; 李杨; 孙斌

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002073

口服盐酸利多卡因胶浆联合磷酸钠盐在肠镜检查中的效果观察

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002073

1.
安徽医科大学第一附属医院消化内科，安徽合肥 230022
2.
安徽医科大学第一附属医院人力资源部，安徽合肥 230022

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目 61976007

详细信息

通讯作者:
李伦兰，E-mail：lilunlan@aliyun.com

中图分类号: R473.57 R574
计量
- 文章访问数: 288
- HTML全文浏览量: 180
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-02-04
- 网络出版日期: 2022-02-16

The effect of oral lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage combined with sodium phosphate in colonoscopy

1.
Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui 230022, China

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨口服盐酸利多卡因胶浆联合磷酸钠盐溶液肠道准备方法在普通肠镜检查肠道准备中的应用效果，以提高肠镜检查效率及质量。方法选择安徽医科大学第一附属医院2020年4—6月接受普通结肠镜检查的293例患者为研究对象，按随机数字表法随机分为观察组(145例)和对照组(148例)。对照组患者采用传统方法，即分2次服用磷酸钠盐行肠道准备，观察组患者在对照组的基础上于检查前4~6 h加服20 mL盐酸利多卡因胶浆。采用Morisky服药依从性量表、波士顿肠道准备量表、Bubble气泡评分标准、疼痛数字评分法比较2组患者在服药依从性、肠道准备清洁度、肠道气泡评分、检查中患者疼痛程度以及退镜时间、息肉检出率上的差异。结果 2组患者服药依从性、肠道清洁度、疼痛程度、息肉检出率比较，差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05)。观察组患者肠道气泡评分为(2.57±0.69)分，高于对照组患者[(2.24±0.78)分]，差异有统计学意义(t=3.833, P＜0.001)。观察组患者退镜时间为(6.82±1.23)min，短于对照组患者[(7.88±1.77)min]，差异有统计学意义(t=5.941, P＜0.001)。结论口服盐酸利多卡因胶浆联合磷酸钠盐肠道准备方法，能够有效减少肠道内的气泡量，缩短肠镜检查时间，提高肠镜检查效率及质量。
- 盐酸利多卡因胶浆 /
- 结肠镜 /
- 肠道准备 /
- 磷酸钠盐 /
- 祛泡
Abstract: Objective To explore the application effect of oral lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage combined with sodium phosphate solution in bowel preparation in common colonoscopy and to improve the efficiency and quality of colonoscopy. Methods Total 293 patients who underwent general colonoscopy in our hospital from April to June 2020 were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups according to the random number table method, including 145 cases in the experimental group and 148 cases in the control group. The patients in the control group used the traditional method of taking sodium phosphate in two doses for bowel preparation. The patients in the experimental group were given 20 mL lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage 4-6 hours before the examination on the basis of the control group. Morisky Medication Compliance Scale, Boston Bowel Intestinal Preparation Scale, Bubble Score, and Pain Numerical Score were used to compare the medication compliance, cleanliness of intestinal preparation, intestinal bubble score, and the degree of pain during the examination between the two groups of patients. Results There were no significant difference in medication compliance, intestinal cleanliness, pain degree, and polyp detection rate between the two groups of patients (all P>0.05). The score of the intestinal bubble score of the test group was (2.57±0.69) points, which was higher than the score of the control group [(2.24±0.78) points], and the difference was statistically significant (t=3.833, P < 0.001). The time to withdraw the lens in the experimental group was (6.82±1.23) minutes, which was less than (7.88±1.77) minutes in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (t=5.941, P < 0.001). Conclusion The intestinal preparation method of oral lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage combined with sodium phosphate can effectively reduce the amount of bubbles in the intestine, shorten the time of colonoscopy, and improve the efficiency and quality of colonoscopy.
- Lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage /
- Colonoscopy /
- Bowel preparation /
- Sodium phosphate /
- Dispelling bubbles

HTML全文

图 1 2组行普通结肠镜检查患者肠道准备后电子结肠镜检查图片

上排为对照组检查图片；下排为观察组检查图片。

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 2组行普通结肠镜检查患者一般临床资料比较

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄(x±s, 岁)	便秘史(例)	就诊类型(例)
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(x±s, 岁)	便秘史(例)	门诊	住院
观察组	145	68	77	46.72±16.45	13	75	70
对照组	148	73	75	49.63±17.72	18	80	68
统计量		0.173^a		1.456^b	0.791^a	0.160^a
P值		0.678		0.146	0.374	0.690
注：^a为χ²值，^b为t值。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 2组行普通结肠镜检查患者服药依从性、肠道清洁度评分、肠道祛泡效果评分比较

组别	例数	服药依从性(例)		清洁度评分(x±s，分)	气泡量评分(x±s，分)
组别	例数	优良	差	清洁度评分(x±s，分)	气泡量评分(x±s，分)
观察组	145	135	10	6.72±1.34	2.57±0.69
对照组	148	142	6	6.85±1.22	2.24±0.78
统计量		1.146^a		0.869^b	3.833^b
P值		0.284		0.386	＜0.001
注：^a为χ²值，^b为t值。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 2组行普通结肠镜检查患者退镜时间、息肉检出率、疼痛程度比较

组别	例数	退镜时间(x±s，min)	息肉检出[例(%)]	疼痛评分(x±s，分)
观察组	145	6.82±1.23	43(29.66)	3.25±1.02
对照组	148	7.88±1.77	34(22.97)	3.37±1.10
统计量		5.941^a	1.688^b	0.968^a
P值		＜0.001	0.194	0.334
注：^a为t值，^b为χ²值。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(21)

[1]	FACCIORUSSO A, ANTONINO M, DI MASO M, et al. Non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms: Classification, therapy and follow-up[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(17): 5149-5157. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i17.5149
[2]	ABOU FADEL C G, SHAYTO R H, SHARARA A I. Optimizing colonoscopy quality: From bowel preparation to surveillance[J]. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol, 2016, 14(1): 115-127. doi: 10.1007/s11938-016-0073-3
[3]	宋群容. 口服磷酸钠盐与聚乙二醇在肠息肉电切术中的肠道清洁效果比较[J]. 四川医学, 2018, 39(6): 674-676. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SCYX201806022.htm
[4]	ZHANG S, ZHENG D, WANG J, et al. Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: A multicenter randomized trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2018, 50(4): 412-422. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121337
[5]	王丽, 林香春, 张蕾, 等. 二甲硅油联合聚乙二醇电解质用于结肠镜肠道准备: 单盲随机对照研究[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2019, 19(9): 773-777. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2019.09.002
[6]	张琼英, 王瑜, 李小青, 等. 不同浓度利多卡因胶浆在普通胃镜检查中麻醉、祛泡效果的随机对照研究[J]. 四川医学, 2017, 38(7): 721-723. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SCYX201707004.htm
[7]	MORISKY D E, ANG A, KROUSEL-WOOD M, et al. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting[J]. J Clin Hypertens(Greenwich), 2008, 10(5): 348-354. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.07572.x
[8]	LAI E J, CALDERWOOD A H, DOROS G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: A valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2009, 69(3): 620-625. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057
[9]	YOO I K, LEE J S, CHUN H J, et al. A randomized, prospective trial on efficacy and tolerability of low-volume bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2015, 47(2): 131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.10.019
[10]	杨成, 项立, 赵新华, 等. 结肠镜退镜时间的研究现状及思考[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2016, 33(8): 512-513. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2016.08.002
[11]	CAMACHO S. Evidence-based and patient-centered medicine with shared decision improves colonoscopy efficacy in poor bowel preparation patients[J]. J Invest Surg, 2020, 33(5): 466-467. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1526989
[12]	王田田, 尤丽丽. 结肠镜检查前肠道准备质量影响因素的Meta分析[J]. 护理研究, 2021, 35(2): 223-230. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXHZ202102007.htm
[13]	占俊, 汤进芝, 汪文生, 等. 不同剂型聚乙二醇电解质在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用比较[J]. 中华全科医学, 2020, 18(8): 1283-1286. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SYQY202008011.htm
[14]	唐川君, 李小青, 兰慧, 等. 不同时间口服磷酸钠盐液对肠道清洁的效果评价[J]. 西部医学, 2018, 30(10): 1539-1541, 1546. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2018.10.033
[15]	娄青玲, 高峰. 盐酸达克罗宁胶浆在肠镜检查中去泡效果的单中心随机对照研究[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2017, 34(8): 582-585. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2017.08.010
[16]	纪丽, 白姣姣, 顾幼敏, 等. 结肠镜检查前肠道清洁效果及影响因素调查分析[J]. 护理学杂志, 2015, 30(24): 33-35. doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2015.24.033
[17]	刘晶婧, 李牧虹, 冯跃, 等. PPT结合微信视频宣教在老年住院患者结肠镜检查准备中的应用效果[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2020, 39(17): 3240-3244. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn221370-20190506-01001
[18]	张京蕾, 周鸿. 基于电视平台的术前教育在肠镜检查患者肠道准备中的应用[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2020, 26(21): 2914-2917. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115682-20191130-04357
[19]	杨文博, 李红, 何利平. 结肠镜检查等待时间对患者肠道准备质量的影响研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2020, 55(10): 1452-1457. doi: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2020.10.002
[20]	宋燕, 阮春凤, 汪景丽, 等. 步行运动在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用[J]. 上海护理, 2018, 18(3): 40-42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8399.2018.03.012
[21]	何小建, 李海涛, 柳刚, 等. 复合分光染色内镜与普通内镜结肠息肉检出率的对比研究[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2020, 37(10): 742-744. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20190709-00417