摘要
【目的】比较鼻腔扩容术与鼻腔结构矫正术治疗轻中度阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征（OSAHs）的效果及对惠者生活质量的影响。【方法】选择2013年1月至2016年3月本院耳鼻喉科68例轻中度OSAHS患者作为研究对象。依据术式不同，分为鼻腔扩容术组（n=38）和鼻腔矫正术组（n=30），比较两组手术前后呼吸暂停通气指数（AHI）、最低血氧饱和度（LSaO2）、平均血氧饱和度（MSaO2）和觉醒指数，Ep—worth嗜睡量表（ESS）、鼾声（SOS）和鼻塞视觉模拟量表（VAs）评分，生活质量情况，术后并发症及满意度。【结果】术后3个月，两组AHI和觉醒指数显著下降，LSaO2和MSaO2显著上升，ESS、SOS和VAS评分均显著降低（P〈0．05），生活质量评分显著上升，且术后3个月鼻腔扩容术组AHI、LSaO2、Sos评分、VAs评分和生活质量评分下降或上升幅度大于鼻腔矫正术组，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；鼻腔矫正术组并发症发生率10％，满意度94．74％，而鼻腔扩容术组分别为0％和76．67％，两组差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。【结论】鼻腔扩容术与鼻腔结构矫正术治疗轻中度OSAHS均有较好疗效，但鼻腔扩容术改善患者症状和生活质量效果更好，并发症少，满意度更高，更值得临床推荐。
[Objective]To compare the effect of nasal cavity expansion and nasal cavity structural correc tion in the treatment of mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome （OSAHS） and its influ ence on the quality of life of patients.[Methods]From January 2013 to March 2016, 68 patients with mild to moderate OSAHS in otolaryngology department of our hospital were studied. According to the different opera tion methods, they were divided into two groups： the nasal cavity dilatation group （ n = 38） and the nasal cav ity orthodontics group （ n = 30）.The apnea Hypopnea index （AHI）, the lowest oxygen saturation （LSaOe）, the mean oxygen saturation （MSaO2）, the awakening Index, the Epworth sleepiness scale（ESS）, the snoring （SOS）, nasal congestion visual analogue scale （VAS）, quality of life （QOL）, postoperative complications and satisfaction were compared between the two groups before and after operation.IResults]At 3 months after op- eration, the AHI and awakening index of the two groups decreased significantly. The scores of LSaO2 and MSa（）2 increased significantly. The scores of ESS, SOS and VAS decreased significantly （ P 〈20.05）, and the scores of quality of life （QOL） increased significantly. In the nasal cavity enlargement group, the VAS score and the quality of life score decreased or increased 3 months after operation, and the difference was statistically significant （ P 〈0.05）. The incidence of complications in the nasal cavity orthopedic group was 10G, the sat-- isfaction rate was 94,74%, while in the nasal cavity dilatation group it was 0G and 76.67, respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant （ P 〈0.05）.[Conclusion]Both nasal cavity en- largement and nasal structure orthodontics were effective in the treatment of mild to moderate OSAHS, but nasal augmentation was more effective in improving symptoms and quality of life, with fewer complications and higher satisfaction, which was worthy of clinical recommendation.
出处
《医学临床研究》
CAS
2018年第2期232-235,共4页
Journal of Clinical Research
