论文部分内容阅读
目的：比较Nasalpacking（NP）鼻腔填塞材料与传统鼻腔填塞材料对顽固性鼻出血治疗的疗效。方法：制定顽固性鼻出血的诊断标准，并以此标准对312例鼻出血病人随机分为两组，分别用NP材料和传统鼻腔填塞进行止血处理。结果：NP材料在治愈率和好转率上与传统材料有统计学的差异（P＜0.05）。结论：NP材料与传统鼻腔填塞材料对顽固性鼻出血均有良好疗效。而NP材料具有操作简便、病人痛苦、并发症少等特点。可作为治疗顽固性鼻出血的首选填塞材料。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Nasalpacking (NP) nasal packing with traditional nasal packing for treatment of intractable epistaxis. Methods: To develop the diagnostic criteria of intractable epistaxis. Based on this standard, 312 patients with epistaxis were randomly divided into two groups. The patients were treated with NP and traditional nasal packing respectively. Results: There was a significant difference (P <0.05) between NP material and traditional materials in cure rate and improvement rate. Conclusion: NP material and traditional nasal packing materials have a good effect on intractable epistaxis. The NP material has the advantages of easy operation, patient suffering, fewer complications and so on. Can be used as treatment of intractable epistaxis preferred packing material.