Suppr超能文献

一项关于鼻内麻醉药不同局部应用方式在诊断性鼻内镜检查中疗效的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究。

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study on the Efficacy of Different Modes of Topical Application of Nasal Anesthetics in the Diagnostic Nasal Endoscopy Procedure.

作者信息

Velayutham Prabu, Davis Prem, Ravichandran Surya, John Joemol

机构信息

Department of Ear Nose Throat, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Puducherry, IND.

出版信息

Cureus. 2022 Sep 21;14(9):e29436. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29436. eCollection 2022 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction In the current otorhinolaryngology practice, technology has always been an essential part. Therefore, diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE) has become a vital examination in today's practice. In order to visualize the nasal cavity in a systematic manner without any discomfort to both patient and doctor, the nose should be well anesthetized and decongested. Objective The study is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of 4% lignocaine-oxymetazoline cotton pledget packing versus topical sprays in the preparation of nasal cavities for DNE. Methodology The prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted among 246 patients and was divided into two groups. In the first group, the nose was packed with cotton pledgets containing 4% lignocaine-oxymetazoline and another group with 4% lignocaine-oxymetazoline spray. Following DNE, patients and surgeons were questioned on a pre-formed questionnaire to evaluate their experience during the procedure. Results It was observed that the time taken for the pre-endoscopic preparation of the packing group was more than the spray group. A total of 91.9% of the spray group had pain during the pre-endoscopic preparation and more burning and tingling sensation than in the nasal pack (75.6%). A total of 69.9% of the patients among the spray group participants compared to 32.5% of the packing group patients experienced more throat discomfort. In addition, 12% of the packing group had mucosal bleeding during the preparation. A total of 32.5% of the spray group experienced severe pain when compared to 12.2% of the packing group during the endoscopic procedure. Most of the participants from both groups had difficulty visualizing the superior turbinate and sphenoethmoidal recess during the procedure. There was a significant difference seen between both the groups with respect to pain during the pre-endoscopic procedure (p=0.0005), burning/tingling sensation (p<0.0001), throat pain (<0.0001), mucosal bleed (p=0.0003), pain during the procedure (p=0.0001), and discomfort after the procedure (p<0.0001). Conclusion Both methods of nasal preparation have merits and demerits in terms of discomfort, pain, and visualization of structures. Still, the packing of the nasal cavity with cotton pledgets is better when compared to spraying with 4% lignocaine-oxymetazoline. However, 4% lignocaine-oxymetazoline spray can be used during an emergency situation and with sensitive patients.

摘要

引言 在当前的耳鼻咽喉科实践中,技术一直是重要组成部分。因此,诊断性鼻内镜检查(DNE)已成为当今实践中的一项重要检查。为了系统地观察鼻腔且不给患者和医生带来任何不适,鼻子应充分麻醉并减轻充血。

目的 本研究旨在比较和评估4%利多卡因 - 羟甲唑啉棉片填塞与局部喷雾在DNE鼻腔准备中的效果。

方法 对246例患者进行了前瞻性、随机、双盲研究,并分为两组。第一组用含有4%利多卡因 - 羟甲唑啉的棉片填塞鼻腔,另一组用4%利多卡因 - 羟甲唑啉喷雾。在DNE之后,就预先制定的问卷对患者和外科医生进行询问,以评估他们在操作过程中的体验。

结果 观察到填塞组内镜检查前准备所需时间比喷雾组更长。喷雾组共有91.9%的患者在鼻内镜检查前准备过程中感到疼痛,且烧灼感和刺痛感比鼻腔填塞组(75.6%)更强烈。喷雾组共有69.9%的患者感到咽喉不适,而填塞组患者为32.5%。此外,填塞组有12%的患者在准备过程中出现黏膜出血。在内镜检查过程中,喷雾组共有32.5%的患者经历严重疼痛,而填塞组为12.2%。两组中的大多数参与者在操作过程中难以看清上鼻甲和蝶筛隐窝。两组在内镜检查前的疼痛(p = 0.0005)、烧灼感/刺痛感(p < 0.0001)、咽喉疼痛(< 0.0001)、黏膜出血(p = 0.0003)、操作过程中的疼痛(p = 0.0001)以及操作后的不适(p < 0.0001)方面存在显著差异。

结论 两种鼻腔准备方法在不适、疼痛和结构可视化方面都有优缺点。不过,与4%利多卡因 - 羟甲唑啉喷雾相比,用棉片填塞鼻腔更好。然而,4%利多卡因 - 羟甲唑啉喷雾可在紧急情况下用于敏感患者。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/653a/9587382/1a906dc4d685/cureus-0014-00000029436-i01.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验