不同喉镜下手术治疗声带息肉的效果比较
|
摘要
目的比较支撑喉镜与间接喉镜手术治疗声带息肉的临床效果。方法选择2017年2-12月医院收治的声带息肉患者76例,根据不同喉镜引导下手术分为试验组与对照组各38例,试验组采用支撑喉镜手术治疗,对照组采用间接喉镜手术治疗。比较2组临床疗效、手术时间、嗓音恢复时间、喉镜置入损伤、声带损伤及复发情况。结果 2组总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);试验组治愈率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者的手术均顺利完成,病变组织行病理检查排除恶化。2组的手术用时、嗓音恢复时间、喉镜置入损伤比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组患者术后均获得至少半年的随访,随访期间,试验组声带损伤率及复发率均低于对照组,差异有统计意义(P<0.05)。结论支撑喉镜与间接喉镜下手术治疗声带息肉均可获得较好的效果,但从整体疗效来看,支撑喉镜下手术更具优势。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of support laryngoscope and indirect laryngoscope surgery in treatment of vocal cord polyps.Methods 76 patients with vocal cord polyps admitted to the hospital from February to December 2017 were selected.According to different laryngoscope guided surgery,they were divided into experimental group and control group,each of 38 cases.Experimental group was treated with support laryngoscopy and control group was treated with indirect laryngoscopy.The clinical efficacy,operation time,voice recovery time,laryngoscope placement injury,vocal cord injury and recurrence were compared between two groups.Results There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between two groups(P>0.05);The cure rate of experimental group was higher than that of control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The operation of both groups of patients was successfully completed,and the pathological examination of the diseased tissue was excluded.There were no significant differences in the operation time,voice recovery time,and the injury of the laryngoscope in two groups(P>0.05).The patients in both groups were followed up for at least half a year.During the follow-up period,the vocal cord injury rate and recurrence rate of experimental group were lower than control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Support laryngoscopy and indirect laryngoscopy can achieve better results in treatment of vocal cord polyps,but it is more advantageous to support laryngoscopy surgery from the overall efficacy.
Objective To compare the clinical effects of support laryngoscope and indirect laryngoscope surgery in treatment of vocal cord polyps.Methods 76 patients with vocal cord polyps admitted to the hospital from February to December 2017 were selected.According to different laryngoscope guided surgery,they were divided into experimental group and control group,each of 38 cases.Experimental group was treated with support laryngoscopy and control group was treated with indirect laryngoscopy.The clinical efficacy,operation time,voice recovery time,laryngoscope placement injury,vocal cord injury and recurrence were compared between two groups.Results There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between two groups(P>0.05);The cure rate of experimental group was higher than that of control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The operation of both groups of patients was successfully completed,and the pathological examination of the diseased tissue was excluded.There were no significant differences in the operation time,voice recovery time,and the injury of the laryngoscope in two groups(P>0.05).The patients in both groups were followed up for at least half a year.During the follow-up period,the vocal cord injury rate and recurrence rate of experimental group were lower than control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Support laryngoscopy and indirect laryngoscopy can achieve better results in treatment of vocal cord polyps,but it is more advantageous to support laryngoscopy surgery from the overall efficacy.
引文
[1] 周舟,葛平江,刘倩,等.嗓音障碍严重指数评价声带息肉手术疗效的研究[J].中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2015,50(8):673-676.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-0860.2015.08.014.
[2] 刘波,周长华,熊虹全,等.不同内镜下手术治疗声带息肉110例疗效分析[J].实用临床医药杂志,2016,20(7):150-151.DOI:10.7619/jcmp.201607048.
[3] 郭丽君.纤维喉镜、支撑喉镜对声带息肉手术的应用选择[J].现代医学,2015,7(7):840-843.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7562.2015.07.007.
[4] 马亦飞,龚正鹏,饶立,等.显微镜下经支撑喉镜声带息肉切除86例疗效观察[J].贵州医药,2015,39(6):534-535.DOI:10.3969/j.ISSN.1000-744X.2015.06.023.
[5] 黎景佳,陈伟雄,朱肇峰,等.支撑喉镜显微手术声门区暴露困难相关因素的前瞻性研究[J].临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2017,7(7):520-523.DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2017.07.007.
[6] 汪涛,马俊,方国军,等.支撑喉镜下不同手术方法治疗声带息肉疗效分析[J].中国中西医结合耳鼻咽喉科杂志,2015,23(1):48-50.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-4856.2015.01.015.
[7] 孔繁勇,赵玉梅.显微支撑喉镜下摘除声带近前联合息肉疗效及安全性分析[J].河北医学,2014,6(6):940-943.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-6233.2014.06.021.
[8] 王萍.间接喉镜下钳除声带息肉的临床效果观察[J].中国民康医学,2014,26(7):66-67.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-0369.2014.07.038.
[9] 臧艳姿,张文奇,马崧,等.纤维喉镜下YAG激光与显微支撑喉镜下切除声带息肉后嗓音学分析比较[J].听力学及言语疾病杂志,2014,22(2):206-207.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-7299.2014.02.026.
[10] 戴俊,怀德,曹影,等.咽喉反流对CO2激光喉显微手术术后喉功能及创面愈合的影响及处理[J].临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2016,15(15):1240-1242.DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2016.15.016.
[2] 刘波,周长华,熊虹全,等.不同内镜下手术治疗声带息肉110例疗效分析[J].实用临床医药杂志,2016,20(7):150-151.DOI:10.7619/jcmp.201607048.
[3] 郭丽君.纤维喉镜、支撑喉镜对声带息肉手术的应用选择[J].现代医学,2015,7(7):840-843.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7562.2015.07.007.
[4] 马亦飞,龚正鹏,饶立,等.显微镜下经支撑喉镜声带息肉切除86例疗效观察[J].贵州医药,2015,39(6):534-535.DOI:10.3969/j.ISSN.1000-744X.2015.06.023.
[5] 黎景佳,陈伟雄,朱肇峰,等.支撑喉镜显微手术声门区暴露困难相关因素的前瞻性研究[J].临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2017,7(7):520-523.DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2017.07.007.
[6] 汪涛,马俊,方国军,等.支撑喉镜下不同手术方法治疗声带息肉疗效分析[J].中国中西医结合耳鼻咽喉科杂志,2015,23(1):48-50.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-4856.2015.01.015.
[7] 孔繁勇,赵玉梅.显微支撑喉镜下摘除声带近前联合息肉疗效及安全性分析[J].河北医学,2014,6(6):940-943.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-6233.2014.06.021.
[8] 王萍.间接喉镜下钳除声带息肉的临床效果观察[J].中国民康医学,2014,26(7):66-67.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-0369.2014.07.038.
[9] 臧艳姿,张文奇,马崧,等.纤维喉镜下YAG激光与显微支撑喉镜下切除声带息肉后嗓音学分析比较[J].听力学及言语疾病杂志,2014,22(2):206-207.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-7299.2014.02.026.
[10] 戴俊,怀德,曹影,等.咽喉反流对CO2激光喉显微手术术后喉功能及创面愈合的影响及处理[J].临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2016,15(15):1240-1242.DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2016.15.016.