Analysis of the Effectiveness of Transradial Access Puncture in the Application of Complications and Comfort after Cerebral Angiography

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the analysis of the effectiveness of transradial access puncture in the application of complications and comfort after cerebral angiography. Methods. Retrospectively analyzed 80 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly divided into the control group (femoral artery group n = 40) and test group (radial artery group n = 40) using a random number table from January 2021 to January 2022 admitted to the department of neurology and department of vascular interventions in our hospital and compared the incidence of postoperative puncture site bleeding, time to first postoperative urination, and incidence of postoperative urinary retention and postoperative changes in comfort level. Results. There was 1 case of postoperative puncture site bleeding in the test group and 6 cases of postoperative puncture site bleeding in the control group, with statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05); the time to first urination in the test group (62.47) was significantly better than that in the control group (85.97), with statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05); there were 0 cases of urinary retention in the test group and 6 cases in the control group, with statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05). The GCQ scores of patients in the test group were significantly higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05). Conclusion. Transradial access puncture has a good clinical effect and can effectively reduce the complication rate of patients, which is worth promoting.

Retracted: Analysis of the Effectiveness of Transradial Access Puncture in the Application of Complications and Comfort after Cerebral Angiography

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”