中西医结合治疗由喉咽反流导致的咽喉炎疗效分析

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (729 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要
[摘　要] 目的：探讨中西医结合治疗由喉咽反流（LPR）导致的咽喉炎的疗效。方法：回顾性分析因咽喉不适而就诊，反流症状指数量表（RSI）评分＞13分和/或反流检查计分量表（RFS）评分＞7分为阳性，其中RFS评分阳性100例，RSI评分阳性105例，结合喉镜检查及临床表现，诊断为LPR 105例。随机数字表法分成三组（A组、B组和C组）。治疗方法避免高脂、高糖、辛辣饮食及改变生活方式（如禁烟、酒，晚上9点后不再进食）。A组35例予奥美拉唑[质子泵抑制剂（PPI）]，多潘立酮片治疗加用金参润喉剂；B组35例，给予奥美拉唑，多潘立酮片治疗；C组35例予奥美拉唑治疗。3个月疗程结束后观察疗效。结果：A组35例，显效25例（占71.43%），有效7例（占20%），无效3例（占8.57%），总有效率91.43%；B组35例，显效17例（占48.57%），有效5例（占14.29%），无效13例（占37.14%），总有效率62.86%；C组35例，显效12例（占34.29%），有效6例（占17.14%），无效17例（占48.57%），总有效率51.43%。三组间的总有效率比较差异有统计学意义（x2=13.788，P＜0.05）。组间比较：A组的总有效率高于B组，差异有统计学意义（x2=6.563，P＜0.05），亦高于C组，差异亦有统计学意义（x2=11.830，P＜0.0125）；B组总有效率与C组总有效率差异无统计学意义（x2=0.933，P＞0.0125，三组总有效率两两比较的检验水准α’=α/2（k-1）=0.05/2×（3-1）=0.0125）。患者咽喉部主要症状缓解时间（周数）比较，A组较B组、C组所需时间短，B组较C组所需时间短，差异均有统计学意义（均P＜0.05）。结论：中西医结合治疗由LPR导致的咽喉炎临床疗效更佳。

	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
	吴贤敏1
	上官翰京2
	陈晓云1
	张悦1
	李贺1
	陈建福1

Abstract： Objective: To investigate the effect of Chinese traditional combined with Western medicine in treatment of pharyngitis caused by laryngopharyngeal reflux. Methods: Retrospectively analysis of treatment for throat discomfort, reflux symptom index (RSI) score >13 points and (or) reflux finding score (RFS) >7 points were positive, of which the score of RSF positive was 100 cases, the score of RSI positive 105 cases, combined with laryngoscope examination and clinical manifestations, 105 cases were diagnosed as LPR. 105 cases were Randomly divided into three groups. the treatment method included avoiding high fat, high sugar, hot and spicy diet and changing lifestyle (such as smoking, alcohol and no longer eat after 9 pm). 35 cases in A group were treated with omeprazole [proton pump inhibitor (PPI)], domperidone and jingshen moisten throat agent therapy, 35 cases of B group were treated with omeprazole and domperidone therapy, 35 cases of C group were treated with omeprazole therapy. The curative effect was observed after the end of treatment for 3 months. Results: In group A, 25 cases (71.43%) were markedly effective, 7 cases (20%) were effective, 3 cases (8.57%) were invalid, the total effective rate was 91.43%; in group B, 17 cases (48.57%) were markedly effective, 5 cases (14.29%) were effective, 13 cases (37.14%) were invalid, the total effective rate was 62.86%; in group C, 12 cases (34.29%) were markedly effective, 6 cases (17.14%) were effective, 17 cases (48.57%) were invalid, the total effective rate was 51.43%. The difference was statistically significant (x2=13.788, P<0.05) when comparison of the total efficiency among the three groups. Comparison between the two groups: the total effective rate of A group was higher than that of B group, and the difference was statistically significant (x2=6.563, P<0.0125), the total effective rate of A group was higher than that of C group, and the difference was statistically significant (x2=11.830, P<0.0125). The total effective rate between B group and C group were no significant difference, and the difference had no statistically significant (x2=0.933, P>0.0125). Main symptom remission time (weeks) in throat department in the A group was shorter than that in the B group, also shorter than that in the C group, main symptom remission time in the B group in throat department was shorter than that in the C group, the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). Conclusion: Traditional Chinese combined with Western medicine had better clinical effect in the treatment of pharyngitis caused by LPR.

收稿日期: 2013-02-27

作者简介: 吴贤敏（1982-），男，浙江温州人，主治医师，硕士

链接本文:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/ 或 https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/Y2014/V44/I1/51

[1] 王进, 王荣光, 韩东一, 等. 喉咽反流[J]. 国外医学耳鼻咽喉科学分册, 2005, 29: 286-288.
[2] Rouev P, Chakarski I, Doskov D, et al. Laryngopharyngeal symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. J Voice, 2005, 19: 476-480.
[3] Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Amin MR, et a1. Symptoms and findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux[J]. Ear Nose Throat J, 2002, 81(9 Suppl 2): 10-13.
[4] Koufman JA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux is different from classic gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Ear Nose Throat J, 2002, 81(9 Supp1 2): 7-9.
[5] 赵暨文, 陈影秋, 徐娅苹. 埃索美拉唑治疗咽喉反流症的疗效观察[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2008, 22(12): 571-572.
[6] 李湘平, 陈顺金, 王路, 等. 唾液中胃蛋白酶检测对咽喉反流的诊断价值[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2009, 44(2): 99-104.
[7] Reulbach TR, Belafsky PC, Blalock PD, et al. Occult laryn- geal pathology in a community-based cohort[J]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2001, 124(4): 448-450.
[8] Shaker R, Milbrath M, Ren J, et al. Esophagopharyngeal distribution of refluxed gastric acid in patients with reflux laryngitis[J]. Gastroenterology, 1995, 109(5): 1575-1582.
[9] Ylitalo R, Lindestad PA, Ramel S. Symptoms, laryngeal findings, and 24-hour pH monitoring in patients with sus- pected gastroesophago-pharyngeal reflux[J]. Laryngoscope, 2001, 111(10): 1735-1741.
[10] 王晓晔, 叶京英, 韩德民. 全天咽喉pH检测在诊断反流性咽喉部疾病中的作用[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2007, 42 (11): 834-838．
[11] 李进让. 咽喉反流性疾病的诊断和治疗[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2009, 44(2): 172-176．
[12] 欧阳天斌, 唐世雄, 张立涛, 等. 24h双探针pH检测在咽喉反流疾病的临床研究[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2012, 47(4): 320-323.
[13] 刘军, 臧艳姿, 谢为民, 等. 药物联合治疗咽喉反流的临床评价[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2010, 45(3): 244-246.
[14] 王海国, 俞其光. 咽喉反流88例患者的临床研究[J]. 河北医科大学学报, 2012, 33(7): 787-789.