【摘要】：目的:比較3種奧硝唑用藥方案治療慢性盆腔炎(PID)的療效和安全性。方法:120例慢性PID患者隨機(jī)分為奧硝唑組(40例)、聯(lián)用左氧氟沙星組(40例)和聯(lián)用頭孢地尼組(40例)。在常規(guī)治療的基礎(chǔ)上,奧硝唑組患者口服奧硝唑片0.5 g,每日早晚1次;聯(lián)用左氧氟沙星組患者在奧硝唑組治療的基礎(chǔ)上口服鹽酸左氧氟沙星片0.1 g,每日3次;聯(lián)用頭孢地尼組患者在奧硝唑組治療的基礎(chǔ)上口服頭孢地尼分散片0.1 g,每日3次。3組療程均為10 d。觀察3組患者的臨床療效,治療前后血漿黏度、紅細(xì)胞壓積、C反應(yīng)蛋白(CRP)、白細(xì)胞介素1(IL-1)、白細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、淋巴細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、淋巴細(xì)胞百分比及不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生情況。結(jié)果:總有效率頭孢地尼組(95.00%)左氧氟沙星組(82.50%)奧硝唑組(62.50%),差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。治療前,3組患者血漿黏度、紅細(xì)胞壓積、CRP、IL-1、白細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、淋巴細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、淋巴細(xì)胞百分比比較,差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);治療后,3組患者上述指標(biāo)均顯著低于同組治療前,且聯(lián)用頭孢地尼組聯(lián)用左氧氟沙星組奧硝唑組,差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。聯(lián)用左氧氟沙星組患者不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率顯著高于奧硝唑組和聯(lián)用頭孢地尼組,差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);但奧硝唑組和聯(lián)用頭孢地尼組比較,差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論:在常規(guī)治療的基礎(chǔ)上,奧硝唑聯(lián)合頭孢地尼治療慢性PID的療效顯著優(yōu)于奧硝唑聯(lián)合左氧氟沙星和單用奧硝唑,且安全性與單用奧硝唑相近。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the efficacy and safety of three ornidazole regimens in the treatment of chronic pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Methods: 120 patients with chronic PID were randomly divided into ornidazole group (n = 40), levofloxacin group (n = 40) and cefdinil group (n = 40). On the basis of routine treatment, ornidazole group was given ornidazole tablet 0.5 g once a day, and levofloxacin group was given levofloxacin hydrochloride 0.1 g, 3 times a day, on the basis of ornidazole group. The patients in cefdinil group were treated with ornidazole on the basis of oral cefdinil dispersible tablets 0.1 g, 3 times a day. The course of treatment in the three groups was 10 days. The clinical efficacy, plasma viscosity, hematocrit, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 1 (IL-1), leukocyte count and lymphocyte count were observed before and after treatment. Percentage of lymphocytes and occurrence of adverse reactions. Results: the total effective rate of cefdinil group (95.00%), levofloxacin group (82.50%) and ornidazole group (62.50%) were significantly different (P0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in plasma viscosity, hematocrit, CRP,IL-1, white blood cell count and lymphocyte percentage between the three groups (P0.05). After treatment, the above indexes of the three groups were significantly lower than those of the same group before treatment, and the combined use of cefodil combined with levofloxacin group ornidazole group, the differences were statistically significant (P0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in combination with levofloxacin group was significantly higher than that in ornidazole group and cefdinil group (P0.05). There was no significant difference between ornidazole group and cefdinil group (P0.05). Conclusion: the efficacy of ornidazole combined with cefdinil in the treatment of chronic PID is better than ornidazole combined with levofloxacin and ornidazole alone and the safety is similar to that of ornidazole alone.
【作者單位】： 南京醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬淮安第一醫(yī)院;
【分類號(hào)】：R711.33

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 賈萍;奧硝唑在婦科臨床中的應(yīng)用[J];成都醫(yī)藥;2004年01期

2 陳冰心;;奧硝唑和替硝唑治療婦產(chǎn)科厭氧菌感染的臨床對(duì)照研究[J];廣州醫(yī)藥;2007年01期

3 郝玉鳳;王茜;袁曉潔;王麗萍;盧戰(zhàn)凱;;左奧硝唑、奧硝唑、替硝唑治療盆腔炎臨床對(duì)比研究[J];中國(guó)性科學(xué);2012年08期

4 王紅云;;奧硝唑與甲硝唑治療滴蟲(chóng)性陰道炎的療效觀察[J];臨床合理用藥雜志;2014年15期

5 蘇凌春,蘭順,馬剛;奧硝唑在母乳中的藥物動(dòng)力學(xué)及合理哺乳時(shí)間[J];中華圍產(chǎn)醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2004年01期

6 李楚梅;;頭孢他啶、奧硝唑聯(lián)合中藥灌腸治療慢性盆腔炎的療效觀察[J];求醫(yī)問(wèn)藥(下半月);2012年04期

7 伍雨蓮;;奧硝唑預(yù)防剖宮產(chǎn)術(shù)后感染200例臨床觀察[J];海南醫(yī)學(xué);2009年S4期

8 張秀晏;劉小麗;王華;;觀察奧硝唑治療滴蟲(chóng)性陰道炎的臨床療效及不良反應(yīng)[J];中國(guó)繼續(xù)醫(yī)學(xué)教育;2014年04期

9 吳海霞;;LEEP刀手術(shù)聯(lián)合奧硝唑栓治療宮頸病變的療效觀察[J];中外醫(yī)學(xué)研究;2011年33期

10 吳江;路錦;;鹽酸左氧氟沙星、奧硝唑配合微波治療慢性盆腔炎92例[J];陜西醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2012年08期

，

本文編號(hào)：2372474