论文部分内容阅读
目的比较四种浆膜腔积液细胞块制作方法。方法应用试管包埋法(A)、普通离心沉淀法(B)、血清凝聚法(C)、琼脂凝聚法(D)对80例浆膜腔积液细胞块制作的成功率和完整性进行比较。结果略浑浊积液中,A法与C法,B法与A法、C法、D法成功率的差异均有统计学意义(χ2=4.79、21.25、6.94、16.73,P均<0.01或P<0.05);血性或浑浊的积液中,四种方法制成细胞块的成功率都在93.3%以上,无差异性(P>0.05)。A法、D法与B法、C法;B法与C法完整率的差异有统计学意义(χ2值=39.63、3.97、41.23、4.91、20.32,P均<0.01或P<0.05)。结论在略浑浊的积液中,细胞块制作成功率依次为A法、D法、C法、B法;在血性或浑浊的积液中,四种方法都可行,但完整性方面A法、D法要优于另外两种方法。
Objective To compare four methods of making serous effusion cell mass. Methods The success rate and integrity of 80 cases of serous effusion cell mass were compared by tube embedding method (A), ordinary centrifugal sedimentation method (B), serum coagulation method (C) and agar agglutination method (D) . Results slightly turbid effusion, A method and C method, B method and A method, C method, D method, the success rate of difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 4.79,21.25,6.94,16.73, P <0.01 or P <0.05). In bloody or turbid effusions, the success rate of all four methods for making cell mass was over 93.3%, with no difference (P> 0.05). A method, D method and B method, C method; B method and C method of the complete rate difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 39.63,3.97,41.23,4.91,20.32, P <0.01 or P <0.05). Conclusion In the slightly turbid effusion, the success rate of cell mass production was A, D, C and B. In the bloody or turbid effusion, all four methods were feasible, but the integrity method A, D method is better than the other two methods.