专职护理干预在鼻内镜下治疗鼻窦炎与鼻息肉患者中的应用

目的：探讨专职护理干预对鼻内镜下治疗鼻窦炎与鼻息肉中的应用效果。方法选取2009年10月-2012年6月收治的鼻窦炎和鼻息肉患者110例，按照数字随机排序分类方法分为观察组和对照组各55例，两组患者均行鼻内镜下手术治疗，对照组患者给予常规护理措施，观察组患者在常规护理措施基础上，治疗前后均给予专职护理干预措施。观察两组患者的临床疗效，对比术后并发症的发生率，采用焦虑自评量表（ SAS ）和抑郁自评量表（ SDS ）分析患者心理状况。结果观察组总有效率为96．4％（53/55），高于对照组83．6％（46/55），差异有统计学意义（χ2＝11．23，P＜0．05）；观察组患者并发症发生率为5．5％，低于对照组14．5％，差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）；干预后观察组SAS、SDS评分分别为（41．7±4．23），（40．6±4．10）分，均低于对照组干预后的（55．8±3．92），（56．2±4．11）分，差异有统计学意义（t值分别为10．70，11．49；P＜0．05）。结论专职护理干预能够提高鼻内镜下治疗鼻窦炎与鼻息肉的临床疗效，减少并发症的发生，缓解患者的紧张焦虑心理，值得临床推广应用。

Application of full-time nursing intervention on the treatment of sinusitis and nasal polyps through endoscopic

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of full-time nursing intervention on the treatment of sinusitis and nasal polyps through endoscopic .Methods One hundred and ten patients with sinusitis and nasal polyps from October 2009 to June 2012 in our hospital were chosen and divided into the control group and the observation group according to the random number table , each with 55 cases.All patients were all given the＆amp;nbsp;endoscopic surgery , and the control group received the routine nursing , and the observation group received the full-time nursing intervention before and after the operation on the basis of the traditional nursing .The clinical efficacy was observed in two groups , and the incidence rate of postoperative complication was compared between two groups, and the psychological state of patients was analyzed by self-rating anxiety scale （ SAS） and self-rating depression scale （ SDS ） .Results The total effective rate was 96 .4% （ 53/55 ） in the observation group, and was higher than 83.6%（46/55） in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant （χ2 =11.23,P〈0.05）.The incidence rate of complication was 5.5%in the observation group, and was lower than 14.5%in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）.The score of SAS in the observation group was （41.7 ±4.23） after intervention, and was better than （63.8 ±3.75） before intervention, and the score of SDS was （40.6 ±4.10） after intervention, and was better than （62.5 ±3.99） before intervention;the score of SAS in the control group was （55.8 ±3.92） after intervention, and was better than （64.1 ±4.04） before intervention, and the score of SDS was （56.2 ±4.11） after intervention, and was better than （62.8 ±4.13） before intervention.The scores of SAS and SDS after intervention were respectively （41.7 ±4.23）, （40.6 ±4.10） in the observation group, and were better than （55.8 ±3.92）, （56.2 ±4.11） in the control gr