耳内镜下鼓膜修补术与显微镜下鼓膜修补术的对比观察

摘要
图/表
参考文献(24)
相关文章 (3)

全文: PDF (481 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的比较耳内镜下鼓膜修补术与显微镜下鼓膜修补术的效果。方法分析中国人民解放军空军军医大学第一附属医院西京医院2016年1月～2017年12月耳鼻喉咽喉-头颈外科手术室收治的200例鼓膜穿孔患者临床资料，依据手术方式不同进行分组，耳内镜下鼓膜修补术组100例和显微镜下鼓膜修补术组100例。观察比较两组鼓膜修补术患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后疼痛分级、术后听力提高水平、手术总有效率、住院天数和并发症发生率情况。结果两组鼓膜修补术患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后听力提高水平和手术总有效率比较，差异均无统计学意义（P ＞ 0.05）；耳内镜下鼓膜修补术组患者术后疼痛分级优于显微镜下鼓膜修补术组，住院天数少于显微镜下鼓膜修补术组，并发症发生率低于显微镜下鼓膜修补术组，差异有统计学意义（P ＜ 0.05）。结论耳内镜下鼓膜修补术治疗鼓膜穿孔，疼痛感小，恢复快，并发症少，值得临床推广应用。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	刘红付宝花▲ 温立婷周敏

关键词 ：耳内镜下鼓膜修补术, 显微镜下鼓膜修补术, 鼓膜穿孔, 对比

Abstract：Objective To compare the effecacy of otoendoscope myringoplasty and microscope myringoplasty. Methods The clinical data of 200 cases of tympanic membrane perforation patients treated in Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Xijing Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University of PLA, from January 2016 to December 2017 were analyzed. They were divided into two groups by different operation method, with 100 cases in otoendoscope myringoplasty group and 100 cases in microscope myringoplasty group. The peroperative bleeding, operation time, pain grading post operation, improvement of hearing level post operation and total effective rate, hospital stay and complication incidence of the two groups were compared. Results The peroperative bleeding, operation time, hearing level post operation and total effective rate of the two groups had no significant difference (P ＞ 0.05). The pain grading post operation of otoendoscope myringoplasty group was better than microscope myringoplasty group, the hospital stay was less than microscope myringoplasty group, and complication incidence rate was lower than microscope myringoplasty group, the differences were statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). Conclusion The otoendoscope myringoplasty treatment for tympanic membrane perforation patient, the pain is little, the recovery is quick, the complication is few, and it is worth to be promoted.

Key words： Otoendoscope myringoplasty Microscope myringoplasty Tympanic membrane perforation Comparison

通讯作者: ▲通讯作者

引用本文:

刘红付宝花▲ 温立婷周敏. 耳内镜下鼓膜修补术与显微镜下鼓膜修补术的对比观察[J]. 中国医药导报, 2018, 15(24): 117-120.
LIU Hong FU Baohua▲ WEN Liting ZHOU Min. The comparison detection of otoendoscope myringoplasty and microscope myringoplasty. 中国医药导报, 2018, 15(24): 117-120.

链接本文:

http://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/ 或 http://www.yiyaodaobao.com.cn/CN/Y2018/V15/I24/117

[1] 许雨洲，尹治军，陈旭华.耳内镜下鼓膜修补术治疗鼓膜穿孔的临床疗效[J].中国耳鼻咽喉颅底外科杂志，2014， 20（3）：261-262.
[2] 张洁，罗欢欢.耳内窥镜与显微镜下鼓膜修补术治疗鼓膜穿孔疗效比较[J].新乡医学院学报，2017，34（7）：636-638.
[3] Lade H，Choudhary SR，Vashishth A. Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty：a different perspective [J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol，2014，271（7）：1897-1902.
[4] 辛文君，崔珑，夏梦，等.创伤性鼓膜穿孔的研究现状[J].国际耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志，2015，39（6）：352-356.
[5] 宋纪军，杨庆军，夏洪伟．3种不同方式鼓膜修补术的临床观察[J].中国耳鼻咽喉颅底外科杂志，2013，19（3）：264-266.
[6] 胡俊，陈天宾，蒋晓平.耳内镜下鼓膜修补术在早期外伤性鼓膜穿孔患者中应用[J].现代仪器与治疗，2015，21（4）：44-45，48.
[7] 牟珊，张勤修，梁方琪.内窥镜下经耳道夹层法鼓膜修补术[J].中华耳科学杂志，2015，13（1）：132-135.
[8] Mirvakili SA，Baradaranfar MH，Karimi GH. Assessment of spontaneous healing rate of traumatic tympanic membrane perforations and three months follow up; Yazd Forensic Medicine [J]. Tehran University Medical Journal，2011，65（2）：214-217.
[9] Sazegar AA，Karimi YA，Amanpoor S. Effect of Pentoxifylline on The Healing of Guinea Pig Perforated Tympanic Membrane [J]. Tehran University Medical Journal，2004， 62（1）：58-62.
[10] 邹健，李义森，方峥嵘，等.耳内镜下鼓膜修补术35例效果观察[J].交通医学，2015，29（4）：382-383.
[11] Lou ZC. Margin of traumatic tympanic membrane perforation of tympanic membrane flap of prognosis and outcome [J]. Journal of Medical Research，2012，6（1）：111-112.
[12] 袁丹，梅凌云.鼓膜成形术与药物保守治疗单纯慢性化脓性中耳炎临床疗效观察[J].河北医学，2016，22（3）：444-447.
[13] 程芳.耳内镜下经外耳道鼓膜修补术病例报道[J].安徽医学，2014，18（9）：1736-1737.
[14] El-Meselaty K，Badr-El-Dine M，Mandour M，et al. Endoscope affects decision making in cholesteatoma surgery [J]. Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery，2003，129（5）：490-496.
[15] Pothier DD. How we do it：technical note：endoscopic removal of cerumen？[J]. Clinical otolaryngology，2006，31（2）：153-155.
[16] Ebner FH，Koerbel A，Kirschniak A，et al. Endoscope-assisted retrosigmoid intrad ural suprameatal approach to the middle fossa：anatomical and surgical consider ations [J].European Journal of Surgical Oncology，2007，33（1）：109-113.
[17] 苏益波，何勇.耳内窥镜与耳科显微镜下行鼓膜修补术的临床疗效对比[J].现代实用医学，2016，28（10）：1327-1328.
[18] 王进.内镜下与显微镜下鼓膜大穿孔软骨岛-软骨膜成形术差异分析[J].山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报，2014，28（1）：8-9.
[19] 胡志孟，钟大庆，邹建定.耳内镜下鼓室成形术后鼓膜中小穿孔再修补42例临床分析[J].中国基层医药，2015， 22（16）：2488-2490.
[20] 陈菁华，李蕾，王晓侠.自体脂肪及耳屏软骨-软骨膜修补外伤性鼓膜穿孔的疗效观察[J].陕西医学杂志，2015， 44（2）：252-253.
[21] Harugop AS，Mudhol RS，Godhi RA. A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and microscopic myringoplasty[J]. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg，2008，60（4）：298-302.
[22] Prince AA，Rosenfeld RM，Shin JJ. Antihistamine Use for Otitis Media with Effusion：Ongoing Opportunities for Quality Improvement [J]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg，2015，153（6）：935-942.
[23] Hardman J，Muzaffar J，Nankivell P，et al. Tympanoplasty for Chronic Tympanic Membrane Perforation in Children：Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [J]. Otol Neurotol，2015，36（5）：796-804.
[24] Norman G，Llewellyn A，Harden M，et al. Systematic review of the limited evidence base for treatments of Eustachian tube dysfunction：a health technology assessment [J]. Clin Otolaryngol，2014，39（1）：6-21.