{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04734158776402039, 'fraction_numerical': 0.033503277494537506, 'mean_word_length': 4.608163265306122, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of lateral position and prone position ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome].

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical result of lateral position ventilation and prone position ventilation in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) patients.


METHODS
Twenty-four patients were allocated to two groups, with one group (n = 13) receiving lateral position ventilation after April 2002, and the other (n = 11) received prone position ventilation before March 2002. Respiratory and circulatory indices were monitored after position changes and compared between the two groups.


RESULTS
One hour after position change PaO(2) was elevated in both groups; in the lateral position group from (103 +/- 12) mm Hg to (126 +/- 13) mm Hg (P < 0.01), and in the prone position group from (87 +/- 19) mm Hg to (119 +/- 15) mm Hg (P < 0.01). If a 10 mm Hg increase was regarded as the standard of treatment effectiveness, then the effective rate in the lateral position group was 61.5% and in the prone position group was 63.6%, the difference being not significant.


CONCLUSION
As auxiliary means in the treatment of ALI/ARDS, lateral position and prone position ventilation showed similar effects, but the lateral position was more convenient for practice and medical care, thus needs further investigation.