摘要：Objective To explore the natural drainage in non-vacuum decompression Postoperative care of clinical applications. Methods February 2014 to February 2015 in our hospital 50 patients with esophageal cancer were randomly divided into control group and observation group, 25 cases in each group. Control group patients after conventional suction drainage method decompression, postoperative gastrointestinal decompression group were observed no negative natural drainage method. To compare the two groups of patients after drainage, rehabilitation and occurrence of complications. Results The patients in the observation group drainage day lower compared with control group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); postoperative 1d, 2d and 3d drainage as compared with the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05); the rehabilitation patients compared to the control group than in the observation group were superior, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); postoperative complication rate was observed in patients and control patients respectively, 16.0%, 20.0%, respectively, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion For patients with esophageal cancer after natural drainage than the conventional non-vacuum suction drainage decompression method had no significant effect on postoperative drainage, but can be effective in helping patients with postoperative rehabilitation, worthy of promotion.%目的：探究无负压自然引流在食管癌术后胃肠减压护理中的临床应用。方法选取2014年2月至2015年2月在我院接受食管癌手术患者50例，随机分成对照组及观察组，每组25例。对照组患者术后采用常规负压引流法进行胃肠减压，观察组患者术后采用无负压自然引流法进行胃肠减压。观察比较两组患者术后引流、康复及并发症发生情况。结果观察组患者术后当天引流量与对照组相比较低，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；而术后1d、2d及3d的引流量与对照组相比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察组患者术后各项康复情况较对照组相比，均较优，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察组患者及对照组患者的术后并发症发生率分别为16.0%、20.0%，两组比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论针对食管癌患者术后采用无负压自然引流较常规负压引流法进行胃肠减压对术后引流量无明显影响，但可有效帮助患者术后康复，值得临床推广。
