Ultrasonic Auxiliary Treatment Of Tuberculous Peritonitis Curative Effect Of Clinical Epidemiological Analysis

Objective:To discussion the ultrasonic auxiliary treatment of tuberculous peritonitis evaluation of clinical curative effect. Methods:We choosed 130 loculated type of tuberculous peritonitis cases with meet the entry conditions,and divided to control group and treatment group for random number trable. The patients in control group were treated by the anti-tuberculosis drug, while the treatment group were treated by systemic chemotherapy plus ultrasound conductimeter instrument.The programme use Rifampicin( R) 0.45 time/day, pyrazinamide(Z) 0.53 times/day, ethambutol(E) 0.75 times/day, isoniazid(H) 0.3 times/day; Ultrasound-assisted treatment dosage:30 min/times,2 times/day,7 days is one course of treatment.The research contain 2 courses.The control group uses the anti-tuberculosis drug. It was the with the control group.The curative effects of two treatment were evaluated by fever,abdominal pain, diarrhea,vomiting,constipation and other symptoms, Peritoneal effusion subsided,abdominal mass,and abdominal lymph node. Results:1?We choosed 130 cases in this programme. The control group choosed 65 cases, and the treatment group is the same. 61 cases(93.85%) completed in the control group.59 cases(90.77%) completed in the treatment group. There was no statistical difference in baseline data between two group(P>0.05).2 ? There was no statistical difference in sexual(?2=0.001, p>0.05)and age(?2=1.037,p>0.05)between two group. We were compared the fever(?2=0.100,p>0.05),diarrhea(?2=0.275,p>0.05),vomiting symptoms(?2=0.199,p>0.05) and constipation symptoms(?2=0.573, p>0.05).There was no statistical difference in baseline data between two group. The peritoneal effusion(Z=-0.745, p>0.05),abdominal pain(Z=-0.745, p>0.05),abdominal mass and abdominal lymph nodes(Z=-0.161, p>0.05) were division the rank for severity. It was tested by rank test.3?The main symptoms fever was low heat. And most cases had a fever. The positive rate with fever was 75.41% in control group. The positive rate with fever was 72.88% in treatment group. When the one treatment, there were decreased 13.11% in control group. When the second treatment, there were decreased 4.92% in control group. The therapeutic effect in treatment group were better than control group(?2T1=4.482,p<0.05;?2T2=5.483,P < 0.05).4?The second treatment was better than the first treatment for the diarrhea? abdominal pain and vomiting. There were a relieve for the diarrhea?abdominal pain and vomiting between two group. There was no statistical difference in vomiting between two treatment(?2=1.052,P>0.05).There was statistical difference in diarrhea and abdominal pain between two treatment(P<0.05).In the first treatment, there was no statistical difference in diarrhea(?2 =0.284,p>0.05)?abdominal pain(?2 =0.219,p>0.05) and vomiting(?2=0.219,p>0.05) between two group. In the second treatment, there was statistical difference in diarrhea(?2 =6.521,p<0.05) ?abdominal pain(?2 =8.531,p<0.01) and vomiting(?2=4.150,p<0.05) between two group. So there were no obvious difference in the diarrhea?abdominal pain and vomiting. It was better for use the ultrasound-assisted treatment in a long time.5?For the peritoneal effusion subsided, it was better than first treatment. The control group positive rate was 42.31% for first treatment. The treatment group positive rate was 32.00% for first treatment. It was no statistical difference between group(?2=0.579,p>0.05).The control group positive rate was 73.08% for second treatment. The treatment group positive rate was 40.00% for second treatment. It was statistical difference between group(?2=5.685,p<0.05).6?For the abdominal mass and abdominal lymph nodes, it was no statistical difference between two group. The control group positive rate was 34.62% for first treatment. The treatment group positive rate was 28.57% for first treatment. It was no statistical difference between group(?2=0.228,p>0.05).The control group positive rate was 65.38% for second treatment. The treatment group positive rate was 57.14% for second treatment. It was no statistical difference between group(?2=0.385,p>0.05). The abdominal mass and abdominal lymph nodes was better between two group(?2T=4.923, P<0.05; ?2C=4.667, P<0.05). Conclusion:Ultrasound-assisted treatment can increase the local concentration of the drug in the body, thus to improve the efficacy of drugon the body, reduce side effects of oral drugs on the gastrointestinal tract. It could provide a new safe, effective treatment on tuberculous peritonitis.