[1]宋昱 付嘉 于辉 邱梓瀚 刘俊秀**.鼻窦手术后前鼻镜联合鼻内镜与传统全鼻内镜换药模式的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2021,01(3):248-252.
　Song Yu,Fu Jia,Yu Hui,et al.A Comparative Study of Debridement Under Nasal Speculum Combined With Nasal Endoscope or Traditional Nasal Endoscope After Endoscopic Sinusitis Surgery[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2021,01(3):248-252.
点击复制

鼻窦手术后前鼻镜联合鼻内镜与传统全鼻内镜换药模式的比较()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
01
期数:
2021年3期
页码:
248-252
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2021-04-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Comparative Study of Debridement Under Nasal Speculum Combined With Nasal Endoscope or Traditional Nasal Endoscope After Endoscopic Sinusitis Surgery
作者:
宋昱 付嘉 于辉 邱梓瀚 刘俊秀**
(北京大学第三医院耳鼻咽喉科，北京100191)
Author(s):
Song Yu;  Fu Jia;  Yu Hui;  et al.
Department of Otolaryngology，Peking University Third Hospital，Beijing 100191, China
关键词:
鼻窦内镜手术; 换药; 鼻内镜
Keywords:
Endoscopic sinus surgery; Debridement; Nasal endoscope
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨鼻窦内镜手术(endoscopic sinus surgery，ESS)后前鼻镜联合鼻内镜换药模式在临床中的应用价值。方法选择我科2019年8月~2020年10月40例ESS，分为2组：全鼻内镜下换药20例（传统模式组），即术后2周、术后1个月、2个月全鼻内镜下换药；前鼻镜联合鼻内镜换药20例（新模式组），即术后2周行前鼻镜下换药，术后1、2个月行全鼻内镜下换药。比较2组术后1、2个月内镜下LundKennedy评分、主观症状视觉模拟评分（Visual Analogue Scale,VAS）。结果内镜下LundKennedy评分：术后1个月传统模式组（6.0±1.5）分，与新模式组（6.4±1.4）分差异无统计学意义（t=-0.656, P=0516）；术后2个月传统模式组（4.9±0.9）分，与新模式组（4.7±0.6）分差异无统计学意义（t=0.831,P=0.411）；2组内镜下LundKennedy评分随时间的延长均呈下降趋势。术后1个月鼻堵症状VAS评分传统模式组（2.2±0.7）分，明显低于新模式组（2.9±1.2）分（t=-2.062，P=0.046），其余症状VAS评分2组间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。术前与术后1个月4个症状VAS评分均值的差值传统模式组（3.6±0.9）分，与新模式组（3.0±1.0）分差异无统计学意义（t=1.835，P=0074）；术前与术后2个月4个症状VAS评分均值的差值传统模式组（3.9±1.2）分，与新模式组（3.7±1.5）分差异无显著性（t=0529,P=0.600）。结论前鼻镜联合鼻内镜换药模式与传统模式相比，内镜下LundKennedy评分均无显著差异，主观症状VAS评分改善程度无显著差异，可实现症状完全控制，可作为传统全鼻内镜换药的一种替代模式。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo study the clinical value of new debridement scheme under nasal speculum combined with nasal endoscope.MethodsA total of 40 patients receiving endoscopic sinusitis surgery (EES) between August 2019 and October 2020 were selected and grouped. The traditional group was given regular debridement under nasal endoscope in 2 weeks, 1 month and 2 months after surgery; and the new method group was given debridement 2 weeks under nasal speculum, and 1 month and 2 months under nasal endoscope after surgery. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of subjective symptoms and LundKennedy score under endoscope were collected 1 and 2 months after surgery.ResultsThe LundKennedy score under endoscope showed no significant difference between the traditional group (6.0±1.5) points and the new method group (6.4±1.4) points at 1 month after surgery (t=-0.656, P=0.516) and no significant difference between the traditional group (4.9±0.9) points and new method group (4.7±0.6) points at 2 months after surgery (t=0.831, P=0.411), with declining tendency with time. The VAS score showed that nose blocking between the traditional group (2.2±0.7) points and the new group (2.9±1.2) points having significant difference (t=-2.062, P=0.046), but other symptoms having no significant difference at 1 month after surgery (P>0.05). Compared with 4 symptoms before surgery, the VAS gap of the mean values between the traditional group (3.6±0.9) points and the new method group (3.0±1.0) points showed no significant difference at 1 month after surgery (t=1.835, P=0.074),as well as no significant difference between the traditional group (3.9±1.2) points and the new method group (3.7±1.5) points at 2 months after surgery (t=0.529, P=0.600).ConclusionDebridement under nasal speculum combined with nasal endoscope is an alternative in clinical practice as it shows no significant difference in LundKennedy score under endoscope and VAS score of subjective symptoms compared with the traditional method, and both methods control symptoms completely.

参考文献/References:

[1]许庚.经鼻内镜鼻窦手术发展.耳鼻咽喉-头颈外科,2004,11(1):29-31.
[2]许庚,李源,谢民强.功能性内窥镜鼻窦手术后术腔黏膜转归阶段的划分及处理原则.中华耳鼻咽喉科杂志,1999,34(5):302.
[3]左可军,方积乾, Piccirillo JF,等.鼻腔鼻窦结局测试-20(SNOT-20)量表中文版的研制.中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2008,43(10):751-756.
[4]刘俊秀,金兴,丁玉静,等.功能性鼻窦内镜手术后不同换药模式对疼痛和LundKennedy评分影响的比较研究.中国微创外科杂志,2018,18(3):249-251.
[5]中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志编辑委员会鼻科组,中华医学会耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学分会鼻科学组,中国慢性鼻窦炎诊断和治疗指南(2018).中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2019,54(2):81-100.
[6]Lund VJ, Mackay IS. Staging in rhinosinusitus. Rhinology,1993,31(4):183-184.
[7]崔志春,成雷,李海洋,等.慢性鼻-鼻窦炎患者功能性鼻内镜手术前后生活质量评估分析.中国中西医结合耳鼻咽喉科杂志,2015,23(5):344-348.
[8]Lund VJ, Kennedy DW. Staging for rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg,1997,117(3 Pt 2):S35-S40.
[9]Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology,2020,58(Suppl S29):1-464.
[10]左可军,李华斌,史剑波,等.功能性内镜鼻窦手术后不同鼻窦黏膜的转归规律.中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2012,47(5):368-372.
[11]Tsuzuki K，Hashimoto K，Okazaki K，et al. Postoperative course prediction during endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. J Laryngol Otol,2018,132(5):408-417.
[12]Mozzanica F, Preti A, Gera R, et al. Doubleblind, randomised controlled trial on the efficacy of saline nasal irrigation with sodium hyaluronate after endoscopic sinus surgery. J Laryngol Otol,2019,133(4):300-308.
[13]Bachert C, Mannent L, Naclerio RM, et al. Effect of subcutaneous dupilumab on nasal polyp burden in patients with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA,2016,315(5):469-479.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：首都卫生发展科研专项（2020-2Z-40918）**通讯作者，Email：liujunxiusanyuan@sina.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2021-06-09