两种静脉港在乳腺癌化疗中的临床应用研究
Clinical Application of Two Kinds of Venous Port in Chemotherapy of Breast Cancer

目的：对比胸壁式静脉输液港与上臂式静脉输液港在乳腺癌病人化疗中的价值。方法：收集2021年3月~2022年3月我院收治的76名需要进行化疗的乳腺癌患者，分别对患者实施两种植入术，据此将患者划分为胸壁港组40例，上臂港组36例。比较两者手术时间、疼痛评分、导管置入长度、术后并发症、舒适度等。结果：在操作时间方面，胸壁港组和上臂港组操作时间分别为(45.69 ± 7.49)分和(64.23 ± 6.56)分，横向对比分析可知差异显著(P < 0.05)。术后第一天疼痛评分上臂静脉港组(4.30 ± 0.13)低于胸壁静脉港组(4.77 ± 0.11)，横向对比分析可知差异显著(P < 0.01)。其中置入导管总长度，上臂港组VS胸壁港组 = (37.42 ± 2.17) VS (24.37 ± 2.96)，血管内导管总长度，上臂港组VS胸壁港组 = (34.67 ± 2.93) VS (13.6 ± 2.58)，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。术后1天舒适度评分，上臂港组VS胸壁港组 = (89.72 ± 4.56) VS (86.95 ± 3.41)，P > 0.05差异无统计学意义，术后1周舒适度评分，上臂港组VS胸壁港组 = (105.25 ± 6.58) VS (94.75 ± 4.26)分，P < 0.05，差异有统计学意义。上臂港组术后总并发症高于胸壁港组分别为30.56% VS 12.50%，P < 0.05，差异有统计学意义。结论：本文所探讨的两种输液方式均是有效、安全的静脉输液方式，胸壁式输液港术中操作时间短、术后并发症少，但术后患者疼痛更明显，具体选择何种术士应根据病人的具体情况而定。
Objective: To investigate the clinical application of chest wall intravenous port and upper arm in-travenous port in the chemotherapy of breast cancer. Methods: 76 breast cancer patients who need chemotherapy in our hospital in March 2021~March 2022 were divided into upper arm intrave-nous port group (36 cases) and chest wall venous transfusion port group (40 cases) according to the way of vein implantation. The catheter length, postoperative complications, operation time, pain score and comfort were compared between the two methods. Results: The operation time of the two groups were (45.69 ± 7.49) minutes and (64.23 ± 6.56) minutes respectively; The pain score on the first day after operation in the upper arm port group (4.30 ± 0.13) was lower than that in the chest wall group (4.77 ± 0.11), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). The total length of catheters and the length of intravascular catheters in the upper arm port group were (37.42 ± 2.17) vs (24.37 ± 2.96) vs (34.67 ± 2.93) vs (13.6 ± 2.58), respectively, with significant difference (P < 0.01) with significant difference (P < 0.05). The comfort score of the upper arm port group one day after operation and one week after operation were higher than that of the chest wall port group. There was no significant difference one day after operation (P > 0.05), and there was significant dif-ference one week after operation (P < 0.05). The total postoperative complications in the upper arm port group were higher than those in the chest wall port group (30.56% vs 12.50%, respectively). Conclusion: The upper arm intravenous infusion port and chest wall intravenous infusion port are safe and effective intravenous infusion methods. The operation time of chest wall intravenous infu-sion port is short and the postoperative complications are less,