高级检索
    李宁, 卜京丽, 李娟, 赵芃芃, 刘超. RS泪道引流管与单腔硅胶泪道引流管在泪小管损伤修复中的应用比较[J]. 蚌埠医科大学学报, 2020, 45(1): 40-43. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.01.010
    引用本文: 李宁, 卜京丽, 李娟, 赵芃芃, 刘超. RS泪道引流管与单腔硅胶泪道引流管在泪小管损伤修复中的应用比较[J]. 蚌埠医科大学学报, 2020, 45(1): 40-43. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.01.010
    shu
    LI Ning, BU Jing-li, LI Juan, ZHAO Peng-peng, LIU Chao. Comparison of the application value between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture[J]. Journal of Bengbu Medical University, 2020, 45(1): 40-43. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.01.010
    Citation: LI Ning, BU Jing-li, LI Juan, ZHAO Peng-peng, LIU Chao. Comparison of the application value between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture[J]. Journal of Bengbu Medical University, 2020, 45(1): 40-43. DOI: 10.13898/j.cnki.issn.1000-2200.2020.01.010
    shu

    RS泪道引流管与单腔硅胶泪道引流管在泪小管损伤修复中的应用比较

    Comparison of the application value between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture

      摘要
    • 摘要:
      目的探讨RS泪道引流管与单腔硅胶泪道引流管在泪小管损伤修复中的临床疗效。
      方法选择下泪小管断裂病人38例，按泪道支撑物种类不同分为观察组和对照组。观察组泪道支撑物为RS泪道引流管，对照组泪道支撑物为单腔硅胶泪道引流管。对比2组病人手术时间、术后并发症、临床疗效差异。
      结果观察组病人手术时间为（45.17±5.80）min，显著短于对照组的（57.07±5.09）min（P < 0.01）。观察组病人术后鼻出血1例，泪点撕裂1例；对照组病人出现眼睑外翻1例，置管脱落2例，泪点撕裂3例；2组病人术后并发症总发生率对比差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。拔管后随访3个月，2组病人术后效果差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。
      结论RS泪道引流管对于泪小管损伤修复有良好的手术效果，与单腔硅胶泪道引流管相比，手术时间更短，术后并发症更少，值得临床推广应用。

       

      Abstract:
      ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture.
      MethodsThirty-eight patients with lacrimal canalicular rupture were divided into the observation group and control group according to the types of lacrimal duct support.The lacrimal duct supports in the observation group and control group were RS-type lacrimal tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal drainage tube, respectively.The operation time, postoperative complications and clinical effect between two groups were compared.
      ResultsThe operation time in observation group(45.17±5.80) min was significantly lower than that in control group(57.07±5.09) min (P < 0.01).One case with postoperative nosebleed and 1 case with lacrimal tear were identified in the observation group, and 1 case with eyelid valgus, 2 cases with catheterization and 3 cases with lacrimal tear were identified in the control group.There was statistical significance in the total incidence of postoperative complications between two groups (P < 0.05).After 3 months of extubation, the difference of the postoperative effect between two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
      ConclusionsThe effect of RS-type lacrimal tube in the repair of lacrimal canaliculus injury is good, and the operation time and postoperative complications of which are shorter and less compared with the single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube.It is worthy of clinical application.

       

      • HTML全文
      • 参考文献(11)
      • 相关文章
      • 施引文献
    • 资源附件(0)

    /

    返回文章
    返回