摘要
目的分析鼻出血患者鼻内镜下射频和激光治疗的临床效果,对比两者的优缺点,探讨鼻出血的治疗方法。方法选择343例病情相似的鼻出血患者,在鼻腔表面麻醉下分别行射频和激光治疗,对比两组患者一次治愈率。选择出血部位在中隔前部,年龄20～60岁,病情相同者比较手术时间、手术中暂停手术次数,并通过视觉模拟量表(visualanaloguescales,VAS)比较两组患者的术中不适和医师心理压力评分。结果射频组与激光组一次治愈率分别为96.4%(186/193侧)和94.7%(179/189侧),两组相比无显著性差异(P>0.05)。手术时间(每5分钟计数1)射频组(2.54±0.93)小于激光组(4.65±1.47)(P<0.05);手术中因出血需暂停手术次数射频组[(1.21±0.31)次]少于激光组[(2.87±1.47)次](P<0.05);医师心理压力评分射频组[(2.84±0.72)分]小于激光组[(5.07±1.26)分](P<0.05),均有显著性差异。患者不适评分比较射频组[(6.73±2.06)分]和激光组[(6.91±1.78)分]无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论鼻内镜检查直视下激光或射频治疗鼻出血均可取得较为理想的疗效,在治疗效果和手术中患者不适评分无明显差别的情况下,严格掌握规范操作,射频方法治疗鼻出血在手术时间、手术暂停次数和医师心理压力评分方面都体现出更多优势。
Objective To evaluate the effect of treating epistaxis with radiofrequency and laser via endoscopies. Methods 343 epistaxis patients with similar symptoms and signs were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups to be treated either with radiofrequeney or laser via endoscopy. Primary healing rate, surgery duration and halt frequencies were compared as well as the patients discomfort and surgeons＇ metal pressure stree level were measured with VAS Visual Analogue Scales （VAS）. Results The primary healing rates between the radiofrequency group and the laser group were 96.4% （186 cases/193 sides） and 94.7% （179 cases/189 sides）, the difference was not statistically significant （P 〉 0.05）. The surgery duration in radiofrequency group 2.54±0.93 was shorter than that in the laser group 4.65±1.47 （P 〈 0.05）; the halt frequencies in the radiofrequency group was 1.21±0.31 during surgery and the need of stanching was less than that in the laser group 2.87±1.47 （P 〈 0.05）; the surgeons＇ stree level in the radiofrequency group was 2.84±0.72 which was lower than that in the laser group 5.07±1.26 （P 〈 0.05）; all the above results showed statistical significante difference. There was no statistical significance in patients＇ discomfort grade between the radiofrequency group 6.73±2.06 and the laser group 6.91±1.78 （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions Strictly follow the rules of the procedure, satisfactory outcome can be achieved with these two methods. There is no significant difference in the treating effects and patient discomfort level between the two methods if carefully handled. Radiofrequency has more advantages in treating epistaxis in surgery duration, halt frequency and surgeons＇ stress level.
出处
《北京医学》
CAS
2010年第2期103-106,共4页
Beijing Medical Journal
关键词
鼻出血
射频
激光
内镜检查
Epistaxisp
Radiofrequency
Laser
Endoscopy
