中国基层医药
中國基層醫藥
중국기층의약
CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRIMARY MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
2013年
9期
1318-1319,后插1
,共3页
鼻出血%鼻内镜%治疗结果
鼻齣血%鼻內鏡%治療結果
비출혈%비내경%치료결과
Epistaxis%Endoscope%Treatment Outcome
目的 对比鼻内镜下电凝止血与常规前鼻孔填塞两种方法治疗鼻出血的止血效果和耐受性.方法 对126例鼻出血患者分为两组,76例鼻内镜下双极电凝止血组(电凝组)和50例前鼻孔填塞止血组(填塞组),观察一次鼻出血控制率、耐受程度、住院时间和复发率.结果 电凝组鼻出血一次控制率98.7％(75/76),耐受评分(2.91 ±0.07),住院时间(4.11 ±0.07)d,3个月复发率2.63％ (2/76)；填塞组鼻出血一次控制率72.0％(36/50),耐受评分(7.96±0.10)分,住院时间(6.72±0.13)d,3月复发率16.0％(8/50).两组差异均有统计学意义.结论 鼻内镜下双极电凝治疗鼻出血在效率和耐受性上显著优于常规前鼻孔填塞.前者有可能是临床处理急诊鼻出血的更优选择.
目的 對比鼻內鏡下電凝止血與常規前鼻孔填塞兩種方法治療鼻齣血的止血效果和耐受性.方法 對126例鼻齣血患者分為兩組,76例鼻內鏡下雙極電凝止血組(電凝組)和50例前鼻孔填塞止血組(填塞組),觀察一次鼻齣血控製率、耐受程度、住院時間和複髮率.結果 電凝組鼻齣血一次控製率98.7％(75/76),耐受評分(2.91 ±0.07),住院時間(4.11 ±0.07)d,3箇月複髮率2.63％ (2/76)；填塞組鼻齣血一次控製率72.0％(36/50),耐受評分(7.96±0.10)分,住院時間(6.72±0.13)d,3月複髮率16.0％(8/50).兩組差異均有統計學意義.結論 鼻內鏡下雙極電凝治療鼻齣血在效率和耐受性上顯著優于常規前鼻孔填塞.前者有可能是臨床處理急診鼻齣血的更優選擇.
목적 대비비내경하전응지혈여상규전비공전새량충방법치료비출혈적지혈효과화내수성.방법 대126례비출혈환자분위량조,76례비내경하쌍겁전응지혈조(전응조)화50례전비공전새지혈조(전새조),관찰일차비출혈공제솔、내수정도、주원시간화복발솔.결과 전응조비출혈일차공제솔98.7％(75/76),내수평분(2.91 ±0.07),주원시간(4.11 ±0.07)d,3개월복발솔2.63％ (2/76)；전새조비출혈일차공제솔72.0％(36/50),내수평분(7.96±0.10)분,주원시간(6.72±0.13)d,3월복발솔16.0％(8/50).량조차이균유통계학의의.결론 비내경하쌍겁전응치료비출혈재효솔화내수성상현저우우상규전비공전새.전자유가능시림상처리급진비출혈적경우선택.
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect and clinical tolerance of endoscopic bipolar coagulation hemostasis(EBCH) and nasal packing(NP) in treatment of epistaxis.Methods The clinical data of 76 epistaxis patients treated with EBCH and 50 epistaxis patients treated with NP between Januaray 2009 and December 2011 were retrospectively analyzed.The two groups were matched in age,gender and bleeding sites.One time control rate of epistaxis,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups.Results The one time control rate,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were 98.7％ (75/76),(2.91 ± 0.07),(4.11 ± 0.07) d and 2.63 ％ (2/76) respectively in EBCH group.The one time control rate,body tolerance,hospitalization time and recurrence rate were 72.0％ (36/50),(7.96 ± 0.10),(6.72 ± 0.13) d and 16.0％ (8/50) respectively in NP group.There were significant differences between the two groups.Conclusion The treatment of epistaxis with EBCH is better than NP on the therapeutic effect and clinical tolerance.The former method is a potential preferable choice for the treatment of clinical emergent epistaxis.
