摘要
目的:观察泪道激光成形术、泪道高频电灼术联合不同类型的硅胶引流管植入术治疗鼻泪管阻塞或伴慢性泪囊炎的疗效差异。方法:419例鼻泪管阻塞或伴慢性泪囊炎的患者按照手术方式分为三组,A组:泪道激光成形+泪道引流管植入;B组:泪道激光成形+泪道再通管植入;C组:泪道高频电灼+制备硅胶管植入。比较三组患者术后3个月、12个月疗效的总有效率。结果:三组患者3个月、12个月治疗的总有效率分别是A组76.24%、65.50%,B组79.57%、68.44%,C组88.68%、81.13%。术后12个月疗效均不及术后3个月,疗效随时间延长均有下降。术后3个月、12个月时A组与B组治疗的总有效率差异(P>0.05)不具有统计学意义;C组与A、B组的总有效率差异显著,有统计学意义,C组的近远期疗效均优于A、B两组。结论:手术方式上泪道激光成形联合再通管植入简便、时间短、痛苦少、植管固定良好;手术疗效上高频电灼联合制备硅胶管长期效果更佳。
Objective：To compare the difference of curative effects between Nd：YAG laser and high frequency electrocautery combined with different drainage tube implantation for nasolacrimal duct obstruction of chronic dacryocystitis.Methods：According to operation method,divide 419 cases with nasolacrimal duct obstruction or chronic dacryocystitis into 3groups.Compare the total effective rate of 3groups after operation in 3th month and 12 th month.Results：The total effective rate of each group in postoperative 3th month and 12 th month：group A is 76.24%and 65.50%,group B is 79.57% and 68.44%,and group C is 88.68% and 81.13%.Compared with group A and group B,the total effective rate of group C has a significant statistic difference,while there is no obvious different between group A and group B.Conclusion：In terms of long-term outcome of the surgical treatment,high frequency electro-cautery with silicon tube implantation is better.On the other hand,Nd：YAG laser dacrycystoplasty with lacrimal artificial canal has such advantages as easily implantation,the shorter time,less pain and well fixed.
出处
《医学理论与实践》
2016年第12期1560-1562,1557,共4页
The Journal of Medical Theory and Practice
关键词
鼻泪管阻塞
激光成形术
高频电灼
引流管
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction
Laser dacryocystoplasty
High frequency electro-cautery
Drainage tube
