摘要目的:探讨经桡动脉入路及经股动脉入路行腹部肿瘤病变介入治疗的效果分析。方法:选取2018年1月至2019年8月巩义瑞康医院介入科收治的120例行腹部肿瘤病变介入治疗的患者，男66例，女54例，年龄(51.97±3.47)岁，年龄范围为44～66岁。根据入路方式不同将患者分为经桡动脉组及经股动脉组，每组60例。经桡动脉组使用Cordis桡动脉穿刺包行右桡动脉术，经股动脉组采用经股动脉入路方式行介入治疗。比较两组患者治疗效果、治疗时间(手术时长、X线照射时长)及并发症(皮下血肿、动脉痉挛)发生情况。结果:经桡动脉组治疗有效率[95.0%(57/60)]高于经股动脉组[83.3%(50/60)]，差异有统计学意义( P<0.05)。两组患者的手术时长、X线照射时间比较，差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。经桡动脉组患者并发症的发生率[6.6%(4/60)]低于经股动脉组[30.0%(18/30)]，差异有统计学意义( P<0.05)。 结论:采用经桡动脉入路行腹部肿瘤病变介入治疗的有效率较经股动脉入路高且并发症发生率低，值得在临床上推广应用。

abstractsObjective:To investigate the effect of interventional treatment of abdominal tumor lesions via radial artery approach and femoral artery approach.Methods:From January 2018 to August 2019, 120 patients with abdominal tumor were enrolled in the interventional department of Gongyi Ruikang Hospital, 66 males and 54 females, aged(51.97±3.47)years and ranging in age from 44 to 66 years.According to the different ways of access, the patients were divided into the transarterial artery group and transfemoral artery group, with 60 cases in each group.Right radial artery operation was performed by Cordis radial artery puncture package in transarterial artery group, and interventional treatment was performed by femoral artery approach in transfemoral artery group.The treatment effect, treatment time(operation time, X-ray irradiation time)and complications(subcutaneous hematoma, arterial spasm)were compared between the two groups.Results:The effective rate of transarterial artery group[95.0%(57/60)]was higher than that of transfemoral artery group[83.3%(50/60)], and the difference was statistically significant( P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the operation duration and X-ray exposure time between the two groups( P>0.05). The incidence of complications in the transarterial artery group[6.6%(4/60)]was lower than that in the transfemoral artery group[30.0%(18/30)], and the difference was statistically significant( P<0.05). Conclusion:The effective rate of interventional therapy for abdominal tumor lesions via radial artery approach is higher and the incidence of complications is lower than that via femoral artery approach.