切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华卫生应急电子杂志

中华卫生应急电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 04 ›› Issue (06) : 347 -350. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2018.06.006

所属专题： 文献；

论著

直升机救援在创伤救治中的有效性与可行性研究
张富强1, 王丽1,†()   
  1. 1. 516003　广东惠州，惠州市120急救指挥中心
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-11 出版日期:2018-12-18
  • 通信作者: 王丽

The study on effectiveness and feasibility of helicopter rescue in trauma treatment

Fuqiang Zhang1, Li Wang1,†()   

  1. 1. Huizhou 120 Emergency Command Center, Huizhou 516003, China
  • Received:2018-10-11 Published:2018-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Li Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Li, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

张富强, 王丽. 直升机救援在创伤救治中的有效性与可行性研究[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2018, 04(06): 347-350.

Fuqiang Zhang, Li Wang. The study on effectiveness and feasibility of helicopter rescue in trauma treatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2018, 04(06): 347-350.

目的

探究直升机救援在创伤救治中的有效性与可行性。

方法

本研究以2016年1月至2018年9月惠州市三级以上医院进行创伤救治的132例患者作为研究对象，其中男性68例，女性64例；年龄18～60周岁，平均年龄(32.94±5.31)岁。按照随机数字表法将其分为观察组和对照组，观察组49例，接受直升机救援；对照组83例，接受地面救援。接到急救电话后，观察组实施直升机救援，对照组实施地面救援，于救援地进行紧急处理后送往就近医院根据患者实际情况实施抢救。比较两组患者病死率、严重后遗症发生率、救援相关时间。

结果

观察组病死率(6.12%)、严重后遗症(14.29%)发生率均低于对照组(21.97%、31.06%)，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组出发时间[(13.26±2.83) min]长于对照组的[(6.34±1.09 )min]，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组抵达时间[(32.65±2.57)min]、转运时间[(26.75±5.46)min]及总院前救治时间[(81.43±9.36)min]短于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

直升机救援能降低创伤患者病死率及严重后遗症发生率，缩短救治时间，对创伤救治有着重要意义。然而直升机救援出发时间较长，费用高，短距离救援中更适宜选择地面救援。

关键词: 直升机救援, 创伤救治, 地面救援, 院前救治
Objective

To explore the effectiveness and feasibility of helicopter rescue in trauma treatment.

Methods

A prospective control study was conducted on 132 patients who received trauma treatment in hospitals over tertiary in Huizhou from January 2016 to September 2018. The subjects included 68 males and 64 females, aged 18-60 years, with an average age of (32.94±5.31) years, they were divided into observation group and control group according to random number table method. 49 patients received helicopter rescue were taken as the observation group, and the other 83 patients received ground rescue were used as the control group. After receiving the first aid telephone, the observation group carried out the helicopter rescue, the control group carried out the ground rescue, and after the preliminary treatment at rescue place, they were sent to the hospital to the hospital for the emergency treatment according to the actual situation. The mortality rate, the incidence of serious sequela and rescue-related time were compared between the two groups.

Results

The incidences of mortality (6.12%) and serious sequelae in the observation group (14.29%) were significantly lower than those in the control group (21.97%, 31.06%) (P<0.05). The departure time (13.26±2.83min) of the observation group was significantly longer than that of the control group (6.34±1.09min) (P<0.05). The arrival time (32.65±2.57min), the transfer time (26.75±5.46min)and the total pre-hospital treatment time (81.43±9.36min) in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Helicopter rescue can significantly reduce the incidences of death and serious sequelae of trauma patients, shorten the duration of treatment, and has great significance for trauma treatment. However, the rescue time of helicopter rescue is longer and the cost is high, it is more suitable to choose ground rescue for short distance rescue.

Key words: Helicopter rescue, Trauma treatment, Ground rescue, Pre-hospital treatment
表1 两组不同救援方案死亡率及严重后遗症发生率比较(%)
组别 例数 死亡率 严重后遗症发生率
观察组 49 3(6.12) 7(14.29)
对照组 132 29(21.97) 41(31.06)
χ2值 ? 6.17 5.16
P值 ? <0.05 <0.05
表2 两组不同救援方案救援相关时间比较(min，±s)
组别 例数 出发时间 抵达时间 转运时间 总院前救治时间
观察组 49 13.26±2.83 32.65±2.57 26.75±5.46 81.43±9.36
对照组 132 6.34±1.09 46.73±8.76 49.65±9.53 105.62±12.75
t值 ? 23.82 11.06 15.86 12.12
P值 ? <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
1
王振荣. 有关严重创伤时效救治的护理策略[J]. 现代养生，2016，7(14): 224.
2
Kashyap R, Anderson PW, Vakil A, et al.A retrospective comparison of helicopter transport versus ground transport in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock[J]. Int J Emerg Med, 2016, 9(1): 15.
3
寇玉辉，殷晓峰，王天兵，等. 严重创伤救治规范的研究与推广[J]. 北京大学学报：医学版，2015，47(2): 207-210.
4
姜保国. 我国创伤救治面临的挑战[J]. 中华外科杂志，2015，53(6): 401-404.
5
赵晓东，刘红升. 与时俱进—急诊创伤救治的发展历程与展望[J]. 中国急救医学，2017，37(1): 23-27.
6
张海燕，张海霞，余益民. 严重创伤急救的时效性对创伤救治的指导意义研究[J]. 临床研究，2016，24(1): 193-194.
7
袁家乐，周开园，任杰，等. 直升机医疗救援现状与展望[J]. 中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志，2017，12(2): 164-167.
8
Leira EC, Stilley JD, Schnell T, et al.Helicopter transportation in the era of thrombectomy: The next frontier for acute stroke treatment and research[J]. European Stroke Journal, 2016, 1(3): 171-179.
9
Ausserer J, Moritz E, Stroehle M, et al.Physician staffed helicopter emergency medical systems can provide advanced trauma life support in mountainous and remote areas[J]. Injury, 2017, 48(1): 20-25.
10
Stewart CL, Metzger RR, Pyle L, et al.Helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for the transportation of traumatically injured children[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2015, 50(2): 347-352.
11
岳茂兴．医疗救护直升机在紧急医疗救护中所起的重要作用[C]//.第十二届中国中西医结合学会灾害医学专业委员会学术年会暨2016灾害医学与急危重症高端论坛、国家级继教项目"心肺复苏与急危重症学习班"、广东省继教项目"心肺复苏与急危重症培训班"资料汇编，宝安，2016：563-569.
12
Widener MJ, Ginsberg Z, Schleith D, et al.Ground and helicopter emergency medical services time tradeoffs assessed with geographic information[J]. Aerosp Med Hum Perform, 2015, 86(7): 620-627.
[1] 陈心, 施明明, 柴艳, 岳树源, 张建宁. 颅脑损伤患者院前救治的研究进展[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2019, 05(01): 52-55.
[2] 赵浩, 郑全乐, 潘文龙, 张强, 徐如祥. 移动卒中单元在院前救治急性缺血性脑卒中的应用[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2018, 04(03): 179-181.
[3] 徐如祥. 《欧洲卒中组织（ESO）移动卒中单元院前卒中管理指南》解读[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(01): 5-33.
[4] 胡培阳. 县域实体化创伤中心的建设策略[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 128-128.
[5] 刘励军, 马郁, 许海波, 朱建军. 苏州市创伤救治体系的建设与思考[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2021, 07(04): 226-230.
[6] 王彧姣, 何春来, 高亚楠, 刘颖, 蒋世广, 关争梅, 赵颖, 杨伟娜. 基于创伤急救绿道软件的院前院内联动模式在创伤中心运行中的应用[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2020, 06(04): 224-228.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号