神经损伤与功能重建
神經損傷與功能重建
신경손상여공능중건
Neural Injury and Functional Reconstruction
2015年
5期
421-422
,共2页
急性鼻出血%射频止血%鼻内镜%鼻腔填塞
急性鼻齣血%射頻止血%鼻內鏡%鼻腔填塞
급성비출혈%사빈지혈%비내경%비강전새
acute epistaxis%radiofrequency hemostasis%nasal endoscopy%nasal packing%rehabilitation
目的：比较鼻内镜下射频止血联合康复与传统鼻腔填塞治疗急性鼻出血的疗效差异。方法：急性鼻出血患者84例，随机分为联合组与对照组各42例，分别采取鼻内镜下射频烧灼止血联合康复和传统鼻腔填塞，比较2组疗效及视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分，观察2组鼻腔通气时间及不良反应。结果：对照组治愈29例（69.05%），有效10例（23.81%），无效3例（7.14%）；联合组治愈37例（88.10%），有效5例（11.90%），无效0例。对照组平均 VAS 评分为（3.62±0.49）分，联合组平均 VAS（2.33±0.74）分。联合组的疗效优于对照组（P<0.05），VAS 评分低于对照组（P<0.05），无严重不良反应。对照组鼻腔通气时间为（6.39±3.74）d，联合组鼻腔通气时间为（3.16±2.47）d，2组有显著性差异（P<0.01）。结论：鼻内镜下射频止血联合康复治疗急性鼻出血安全有效。
目的：比較鼻內鏡下射頻止血聯閤康複與傳統鼻腔填塞治療急性鼻齣血的療效差異。方法：急性鼻齣血患者84例，隨機分為聯閤組與對照組各42例，分彆採取鼻內鏡下射頻燒灼止血聯閤康複和傳統鼻腔填塞，比較2組療效及視覺模擬量錶（VAS）評分，觀察2組鼻腔通氣時間及不良反應。結果：對照組治愈29例（69.05%），有效10例（23.81%），無效3例（7.14%）；聯閤組治愈37例（88.10%），有效5例（11.90%），無效0例。對照組平均 VAS 評分為（3.62±0.49）分，聯閤組平均 VAS（2.33±0.74）分。聯閤組的療效優于對照組（P<0.05），VAS 評分低于對照組（P<0.05），無嚴重不良反應。對照組鼻腔通氣時間為（6.39±3.74）d，聯閤組鼻腔通氣時間為（3.16±2.47）d，2組有顯著性差異（P<0.01）。結論：鼻內鏡下射頻止血聯閤康複治療急性鼻齣血安全有效。
목적：비교비내경하사빈지혈연합강복여전통비강전새치료급성비출혈적료효차이。방법：급성비출혈환자84례，수궤분위연합조여대조조각42례，분별채취비내경하사빈소작지혈연합강복화전통비강전새，비교2조료효급시각모의량표（VAS）평분，관찰2조비강통기시간급불량반응。결과：대조조치유29례（69.05%），유효10례（23.81%），무효3례（7.14%）；연합조치유37례（88.10%），유효5례（11.90%），무효0례。대조조평균 VAS 평분위（3.62±0.49）분，연합조평균 VAS（2.33±0.74）분。연합조적료효우우대조조（P<0.05），VAS 평분저우대조조（P<0.05），무엄중불량반응。대조조비강통기시간위（6.39±3.74）d，연합조비강통기시간위（3.16±2.47）d，2조유현저성차이（P<0.01）。결론：비내경하사빈지혈연합강복치료급성비출혈안전유효。
Objective: To compare the efficacy of nasal endoscopy radiofrequency hemostasis combined with reha-bilitation therapy and nasal packing in the treatment of acute epistaxis. Methods: Eighty-four patients with acute epistaxis were divided into groups combination(n=42) and control(n=42). The combination group was given nasal endoscopy radiofrequency hemostasis combined with rehabilitation therapy, and the control group was given nasal packing. The efficacy and visual analog scale(VAS) scores of the 2 groups were compared, and the nasal ventilation time and the adverse reaction were observed. Results: In the control group, 29 case (69.05%) were cured, 10 cases (23.81%) were effective, 3 cases (7.14%) were invalid. In the combination group, 37 case (88.10%) were cured, 5 cases(11.90%) were effective, 0 cases was invalid. The VAS score of the control group was (3.62±0.49), and the VAS score of the combination group was (2.33±0.74). The efficacy of the combination group was better than the control group (P<0.05), the VAS score of the combination group was lower than the control group (P<0.05). There was no serious adverse reaction. The nasal ventilation time of the groups control and combination were (6.39±3.74) d and (3.16±2.47)d, and there was remarkable difference (P<0.01). Conclusion: Nasal endoscopy radiofrequency hemostasis combined with rehabilitation therapy is safe and effective.
