呼吸训练法结合临床护理在气胸患者术后康复中的应用效果

Application of Respiratory Training Combined with Clinical Nursing in Postoperative Rehabilitation of Patients with Pneumothorax

摘要: 目的：探讨呼吸训练法联合临床护理在气胸患者术后康复影响。方法：以2021年5月~2022年5月本院收治的90例气胸患者为研究对象。采用随机数字法分为常规组和呼吸组，每组45例。常规组给予常规临床护理，呼吸组在常规临床护理基础上结合呼吸训练法，比较两组康复指标、肺功能、疼痛程度、生活质量、并发症。结果：呼吸组的初次排气时间、初次离床活动时间、住院时间(1.63 ± 0.42 d, 2.39 ± 0.56 d, 10.46 ± 3.93 d)短于常规组(2.19 ± 0.41 d, 3.27 ± 0.62 d, 15.41 ± 3.85 d)，差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)；呼吸组的FVC、FEV1、FEV1/FVC (3.26 ± 0.37 L, 2.89 ± 0.25 L, 67.95% ± 7.52%)好于常规组(2.69 ± 0.35 L, 2.52 ± 0.28 L, 58.73% ± 7.69%)，差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)；呼吸组的VAS评分(4.27 ± 1.29分)低于常规组(6.19 ± 1.27分)，SF-36评分(72.68 ± 4.26分)高于常规组(65.75 ± 4.13分)，差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)；呼吸组的并发症发生率(8.88%)低于常规组(26.67%)，差异有统计学意义(P值 < 0.05)。结论：呼吸训练法联合临床护理可有效提升患者康复效果与生活质量，有助于其肺功能的改善，并减少并发症的发生，可推广。

Abstract: Objective: To explore the effect of respiratory training combined with clinical nursing on postopera-tive rehabilitation of patients with pneumothorax. Methods: 90 patients with pneumothorax ad-mitted to our hospital from May 2021 to May 2022 were studied. Randomized number method was used to divide them into routine group and respiratory group, with 45 cases in each group. The rou-tine group was given routine clinical nursing, while the respiratory group was given routine clinical nursing combined with respiratory training methods to compare the rehabilitation indicators, pulmonary function, pain level, quality of life, and complications between the two groups. Results: The initial exhaust time, initial ambulatory activity time, and hospitalization time in the respiratory group (1.63 ± 0.42 days, 2.39 ± 0.56 days, 10.46 ± 3.93 days) were shorter than those in the con-ventional group (2.19 ± 0.41 days, 3.27 ± 0.62 days, 15.41 ± 3.85 days), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC in the respiratory group (3.26 ± 0.37 L, 2.89 ± 0.25 L, 67.95% ± 7.52%) were significantly better than those in the conventional group (2.69 ± 0.35 L, 2.52 ± 0.28 L, 58.73% ± 7.69%), with significant differences (P < 0.05). The VAS score in the res-piratory group (4.27 ± 1.29 points) was lower than that in the conventional group (6.19 ± 1.27 points), while the SF-36 score (72.68 ± 4.26 points) was higher than that in the conventional group (65.75 ± 4.13 points), with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05 for all values). The inci-dence of complications in the respiratory group (8.88%) was lower than that in the conventional group (26.67%), with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Respiratory train-ing combined with clinical nursing can effectively improve the rehabilitation effect and quality of life of patients, contribute to the improvement of their pulmonary function, and reduce the occur-rence of complications, which can be promoted.