论文部分内容阅读
目的比较硬膜外麻醉管和双路泪小管环形硅胶软管作为支撑物在外伤性泪小管断裂吻合术中的应用及治疗效果。方法选择外伤性泪小管断裂共58例(58眼),32例置入硬膜外麻醉管,26例置入双路泪小管环形硅胶软管支撑并吻合断裂的泪小管,3～6个月后拔管,随访观察两组治疗后泪道通畅情况。结果硬膜外麻醉管组中治愈19例(59.37%),好转10例(31.25%),未愈3例(9.38%);双路泪小管环形硅胶软管组中治愈18例(69.23%),好转8例(30.77%),无未愈病例;两组患者治愈及好转率经统计学比较(χ2=1.01,P>0.05)差异无统计学意义;随访3月～2年,硬膜外麻醉管组32眼中有4例下睑及泪点轻度外翻,占12.50%。结论泪小管断裂置入硬膜外麻醉管和双路泪小管环形硅胶软管均效果良好,但各有利弊。
Objective To compare the application of epidural anesthesia tube and double lacrimal canal annular silicone tube as support in the traumatic lacrimal canaliculi anastomosis and its therapeutic effect. Methods Fifty-eight cases (58 eyes) of traumatic lacrimal canaliculi were selected. Thirty-two cases were treated with epidural anesthesia tube and 26 cases with lacrimal canaliculus silicone tube in place. After extubation, follow-up observation of two groups after treatment of lacrimal patency. Results Epidural anesthesia tube group cured 19 cases (59.37%), improved in 10 cases (31.25%), healed in 3 cases (9.38%); double tear tube annular silicone tube group cured 18 cases (69.23% , Improvement in 8 cases (30.77%), no cure cases; cure and improvement rate of the two groups were statistically significant (χ2 = 1.01, P> 0.05) no significant difference between the follow-up 3 months to 2 years, epidural There were 4 cases of lower eyelid and punctate edema in 32 eyes of anesthesia tube group, accounting for 12.50%. Conclusions Epidural anesthesia tubes and double lacrimal canaliculus silicone tubes are effective, but each has its advantages and disadvantages.