康复新液联合解痉液防治放射性食管炎的临床观察

时间:2022-07-29 03:53:00

康复新液联合解痉液防治放射性食管炎的临床观察

【摘要】 目的 观察康复新液联合口服解痉液防治食管癌放射性食管炎的疗效。方法 68例中晚期食管癌患者, 随机分为实验组(35例)和对照组(33例)。实验组在口服解痉液基础上加用康复新液(康复新液10 ml+解痉液20 ml)防治放射性食管炎, 对照组口服解痉液(解痉液20 ml)防治放射性食管炎。对比两组临床疗效。结果 实验组和对照组防治放射性食管炎的有效率分别为91.43%和69.70%, 两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P

【关键词】 康复新液;解痉液;食管癌;放射性食管炎

DOI:10.14163/ki.11-5547/r.2016.09.014

Clinical observation of Kangfuxin liquid combined with spasmolysis liquid in prevention and treatment of radiation esophagitis WANG Ji-nan. Department of Radiotherapy, Henan Zhoukou City Central Hospital, Zhoukou 466000, China

【Abstract】 Objective To observe curative effect by Kangfuxin liquid combined with spasmolysis liquid in prevention and treatment of esophagus cancer radiation esophagitis. Methods A total of 68 patients with moderate and advanced esophagus cancer were randomly divided into experimental group (35 cases) and control group (33 cases). The experimental group received oral administration of spasmolysis liquid and additional Kangfuxin liquid (Kangfuxin liquid 10 ml + spasmolysis liquid 20 ml) in prevention and treatment of radiation esophagitis. The control group received oral administration of spasmolysis liquid (spasmolysis liquid 20 ml) in prevention and treatment of radiation esophagitis. Clinical effects of the two groups were compared. Results Effective rates of the experimental group and the control group were respectively 91.43% and 69.70% in prevention and treatment of radiation esophagitis, and the difference had statistical significance between the two groups (P

【Key words】 Kangfuxin liquid; Spasmolysis fluid; Esophagus cancer; Radiation esophagitis

我国是食管癌的高发国家, 食管癌的治疗首选手术, 但能根治性手术治疗的患者仅占全部患者的1/4, 放射治疗(放疗)是目前食管癌主要的、有效的、安全的手段之一[1]。放射性食管炎是食管癌放疗中出现的最常见的不良反应, 主要表现为吞咽疼痛和胸骨后疼痛[2], 患者常因为疼痛而拒食, 影响患者治疗信心, 部分患者因此而放弃治疗。本科传统上予以解痉液(庆大霉素、利多卡因混合液)口服, 但口服后局部症状改善较慢, 部分患者仍有明显不良反应, 本科通过对35例患者选择使用康复新液联合解痉液防治放射性食管炎, 临床观察效果满意, 现总结报告如下。

1 资料与方法

1. 1 一般资料 选取本院2012年1月~2014年12月住院的68例食管癌患者进行观察研究, 所有患者均经食管镜检查确诊为中晚期食管癌, 均给予根治性放疗, 随机分为实验组(35例)和对照组(33例)。实验组中男20例, 女15例, 年龄39~68岁, 平均年龄53岁;对照组中男18例, 女15例, 年龄40~70岁, 平均年龄55岁。两组患者性别、年龄等一般资料比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05), 具有可比性。

上一篇:十一假期前后凤台县城区PM10污染成因分析及控... 下一篇:地方政府预算管理信息披露的研究