Objective To compare the clinical effects between modified nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and modified external nasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Methods Eighty-four patients with chronic dacryocystitis in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2017 were randomly divided into two groups: an observation group (n=44, treated with modified nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy) and a control group (n=40, treated with modified external nasal dacryocystorhinostomy). The patients were followed up for 12 months to observe the cure rate, effective rate, operation time and the incidence of complications. Results In the observation group, the cure rate was 91.5%, the effective rate was 97.7%, the average operation time was 40 minutes, and the incidence of complications was 2.3%. In the control group, the cure rate was 81%, the effective rate was 90.5%, the average operation time was 60 minutes, and the incidence of complications was 9.5%. There was significant difference in curative effect between the two groups (P<0.05). Conclusions Modified nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of chronic dacryocystitis has the advantages of high clinical effect, short operation time, few complications and high patient satisfaction, which is worth to be promoted.
Key words
Chronic dacryocystitis; Nasal endoscope; Modified nasal dacryocystorhinostomy /
Clinical effect
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 秦浩芳, 董利群. 改良的泪囊鼻腔吻合术临床观察[J]. 中华眼外伤职业眼病杂志, 2010, 32(4): 278-280. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-1477.2010.04.011.
[2] 韩德民. 鼻内窥镜外科学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2001: 154.
[3] 寇贵贤. 鼻内镜下泪囊鼻腔吻加喇叭管置入术治疗慢性泪囊炎 [J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2013, 27(2): 94-95. DOI:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2013.02.016.
[4] 罗丹, 温跃春, 季青山. 小梁切除术分别联合Ologen植入与丝裂霉素C治疗青光眼的有效性和安全性对比分析[J]. 眼科新进展, 2016, 36(2): 81-83. DOI:10.13389/j.cnki.rao.2016. 0048.
[5] De Castro DK, Santiago YM, Cunningham M, et al. Amodified lacrimal sac implant for high-risk dacryocysto-rhinostomy[J]. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 2013, 29(5): 367-372. DOI: 10.1097/IOP. 0b013e318 29a72d4.
[6] 陈章雄, 杨凤. 43例慢性泪囊炎的鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床分析[J]. 中医眼耳鼻喉杂志, 2019, (1): 17. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9006.2019.01.008.
[7] 徐菁, 焦秦, 蔡昌枰. 内镜下泪囊鼻腔吻合置管术治疗慢性泪囊炎疗效[J]. 中华眼外伤职业眼病杂志, 2019, 41(3): 172-175. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-1477. 2019. 03. 004
[8] 符艳丽. 改良泪囊鼻腔吻合术68例临床分析[J]. 眼外伤职业眼病杂志, 2010, 32(6): 475-476. DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-1477. 2010. 06. 030
[9] Bisaria KK, Saxena RC, Bisaria SD, et al. The lacrimal fossa in Indians[J]. J Anat, 1989, 166: 265-268. PMID: 2621144.
[10] 李岩, 马琼杰, 李颖, 等. 鼻内泪囊鼻腔造口术相关结构冠状切面断层解剖学观察[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2019, (7): 625-627. DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2019.07.012.
[11] 王秀莲. 经鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术与传统泪囊鼻腔吻合术临床对比分析[J]. 中外医学研究, 2012, 10(4): 1-3. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-6805.2012.04.001.
[12] 朱建光, 杨国庆. 外路鼻腔泪囊吻合术与鼻内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术治疗慢性泪囊炎效果对比研究[J]. 解放军医药杂志, 2015, 27(8): 72-74. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-140X.2015.08.018.
[13] 刘衍波, 林雯, 王秋瑜. 鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术38例临床效果分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2013, 27(6): 61-62. DOI: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2013.167.
[14] 黄业武, 黎国杰. 一种新的鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术[J]. 中国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 2015, 22(5): 257-259. DOI: CNKI:SUN:EBYT.0.2015-05-018.
[15] 金光裕, 栾卫红, 董雅萌, 等. 鼻内镜下三瓣法行鼻腔泪囊吻合术临床研究[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2014, 20(7): 766-768.
[16] 刘光明, 张海涛. 外路及鼻内镜下泪囊鼻腔吻合术的临床疗效分析[J]. 中外医疗, 2019, (18): 54-56. DOI：10.16662/j.cnki.1674-0742. 2019. 18. 054
[17] 李育广, 刘凤英. 鼻内镜下处理经鼻外径路泪囊鼻腔吻合术后复发[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2012, 26(3): 51-53. DOI: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.2012.03.016.
[18] 解凤阳, 李娜. 鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术治疗复杂性慢性泪囊炎[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2011, 25(2): 57-62. DOI: CNKI:SUN:SDYU.0.2011-02-024.
[19] 李冬梅, 丁静文. 外路泪囊鼻腔吻合是否将被淘汰[J]. 中华眼科杂志, 2014, 50(8): 566-567. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081. 2014. 08. 003.
PDF(1148 KB)
