论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨首诊时采用内镜诊治鼻腔出血与传统鼻腔填塞方法相比的优势。方法:回顾性分析了90例首诊时采用内镜诊治的患者和60例采用传统鼻腔填塞的患者,分别就治疗费用、一次性治愈情况、收入院情况、治疗时疼痛程度作比较分析。结果:①内镜治疗组治疗费用低于传统鼻腔填塞治疗组治疗,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②内镜治疗组一次性治愈率93.33%,高于传统鼻腔填塞组一次性治愈率45.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。③内镜治疗组收入院率35.56%,低于传统鼻腔填塞组收入院率88.33%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。④内镜治疗组治疗过程中患者疼痛程度,低于传统鼻腔填塞组患者疼痛程度(P<0.05)。结论:鼻腔深部出血患者首诊时应用内镜,与传统鼻腔填塞相比,费用低、痛苦小、一次性治愈率高、需收入院率低,值得推广。
Objective: To investigate the advantages of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of nasal hemorrhage compared with the traditional nasal packing method. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 90 cases of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of patients with first aid and 60 cases of patients with traditional nasal packing, respectively, on the cost of treatment, one-time cure, hospital admission, the pain was compared for analysis. Results: ① The cost of endoscopic treatment group was lower than that of traditional nasal packing group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). ② The one-time cure rate of endoscopic treatment group was 93.33%, which was higher than that of traditional nasal packing group (45.00%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). ③ The rate of admission hospitalization in the endoscopic treatment group was 35.56%, which was lower than that in the traditional nasal packing group (88.33%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). ④ Endoscopic treatment group patients with pain during treatment, lower than the traditional nasal packing group of patients with pain (P <0.05). Conclusion: Endoscopic nasal deep hemorrhage is the first diagnosis of endoscopic application, compared with the traditional nasal packing, the cost is low, the pain is small, one-time cure rate, the hospital need to pay low, it is worth promoting.