目的 总结束胸后16排螺旋CT扫描在诊断危重小儿气管及支气管异物中的作用。 方法 对2011年9月－2012年2月4例气管支气管异物危重患儿用自制束缚带束胸后行CT扫描，扫描后所得图像与2009年5月－2011年8月8例既往工作中未行束胸CT扫描危重患儿气管支气管异物图像进行比较（其中1例为同一患儿行常规及束胸后CT检查），并进行图像后处理，包括多平面重建、气管支气管树重建、CT仿真内窥镜；并观察束胸检查前后患儿血氧饱和度（SpO2）变化情况；其中1例进行束胸前后胸廓最大径线比较。 结果 束胸后CT扫描能明显降低呼吸运动伪影，对气管支气管异物的发现率有明显提高；检查前后患儿SpO2未见明显变化；1例束胸后胸廓最大径线缩小0.8 cm。 结论 束胸后16层螺旋CT扫描能最大限度的避免呼吸运动伪影，使得气管支气管异物能够快速准确诊断，为后期实施适时治疗提供有效影像资料，进而降低该病的并发症及病死率，并且在束胸检查前后患儿SpO2无明显变化。
Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and treatment-induced side effects of intravesically administered bacillus calmette-guerin (BCG) plus chemotherapy following TURB-t in patients with superficial bladder cancer compared with BCG alone.Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed (1950 to December 2006), Ovid (1966 to December 2006), EMbase (1984 to December 2006), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006), CBM (1978 to 2006) and VIP (1989 to 2006). We also handsearched relevant published and unpublished reports as well as their references.The quality of included trials was evaluated by two reviewers. We used The Cochrane Collaboration’ s RevMan 4.2.9 software for statistical analysis. Results Four studies involving 681 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed that, in patients with Ta and T1 bladder cancer, there was a significant difference in the recurrence rate between intravesically administered BCG plus chemotherapy and BCG alone (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.90). In patients with Tis bladder cancer, no significant difference was found in the recurrence rate between the two groups (RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.54). In patients with Ta, T1 and Tis bladder cancer, no statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of side effects (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.03). Conclusion Compared with BCG alone, intravesically administered BCG plus chemotherapy in patients with Ta and T1 superficial bladder cancer can reduce the incidence of tumor recurrence more effectively. For patients with Tis bladder cancer, the two therapeutic regimens do not differ in the incidence of tumor recurrence. The two regimens have similar side effects. There is a moderate possibil ity of selection bias, performance bias and publ ication bias in the small number of included studies, which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results. Better evidence from more high-quality double-blind randomized controlled trials is needed.