两种填塞方法在鼻内镜术后的临床效果分析
Clinical Analysis of Two Methods of Nasal Packing

目的：评价纳吸绵联合速绫及膨胀海绵联合速绫的填塞方法在鼻内镜术后临床疗效的分析。收集2018年7月至2019年7月于我院耳鼻咽喉科住院进行FESS手术的鼻窦炎患者80例，随机分为两组，分别为FESS术后填塞纳吸棉联合速绫的观察组和膨胀海绵联合速绫的对照组。分别观察和评估两组研究对象的术后鼻腔疼痛、去除填塞物时的鼻腔疼痛及头痛程度[采用数字评分法(NRS)]、鼻塞(采用VAS评分)、鼻腔出血量，判断疗效。结果：纳吸绵联合速绫组在术后第1 d鼻腔疼痛和膨胀海绵联合速绫组的无明显差异，在术后第2 d、3 d和去除鼻腔填塞物时纳吸绵联合速绫组的鼻腔疼痛较膨胀海绵联合速绫组的轻；术后填塞期间纳吸绵联合速绫组的鼻塞程度低于膨胀海绵联合速绫组，纳吸绵联合速绫组的患者鼻腔出血量少于膨胀海绵联合速绫组的；纳吸绵联合速绫组的患者鼻腔粘膜肿胀程度较膨胀海绵联合速绫的低。结论：鼻腔术后填塞纳吸绵联合速绫的填塞效果优于膨胀海绵联合速绫的填塞效果，患者的整体舒适度高，不良反应少，在临床上值得推广。
Objective: To evaluate the clinical effect of nasoabsorbent combined with velum and expansion sponge combined with velum after endoscopic sinus surgery. From July 2018 to July 2019, 80 patients with nasosinusitis who were hospitalized in the otolaryngology department of our hospital for FESS operation were randomly divided into two groups: the observation group filled with Senna cotton suction combined with velum after FESS operation and the control group of expansion sponge combined with velum. To observe and evaluate the postoperative pain in the nasal cavity, the pain in the nasal cavity and the degree of headache (NRS), the nasal obstruction (VAS) and the amount of bleeding in the nasal cavity of the two groups. Results: In the first group after operation, there was no significant difference between nasopharynx pain and nasopharynx group. The nasopharynx pain of nasopharynx group was less than that of nasopharynx group at the 2nd, 3rd and removal of nasal packing. The degree of nasopharynx pain of nasopharynx group was lower than that of nasopharynx group during post-operative packing. The amount of nasal bleeding of nasopharynx group was less than that of nasopharynx group. The swelling degree of nasal mucosa in nasoabsorption combined with velum group was lower than that in expansion sponge combined with velum group. Conclusion: The filling effect of the nasal cavity after the operation is better than that of the expansion sponge combined with velum. The patients’ overall comfort is high and the adverse reactions are few, which is worth popularizing in clinical practice.