论文部分内容阅读
本文观察130例热性惊厥患儿口服安定或肛注预防复发疗效。观察期2年。75例口服法按发热次数计，治疗组复发17／169次（10．1％），对照组复发26／67次（8．8％），有极显著性差异（P＜0．005）。55例肛注法治疗组复发12／123次（9．8％），对照组复发5／19次（26．3％）；有显著性差异（P＜0．05）。口服与肛注法相比复发率无显著性差异（P＞0．05）。二法合并以发热次数计88例治疗组复发29／292次（9．9％），对照组复发31／86次（36．0％）。后者为前者3．6倍，有极显著性差异（P＜0.005）。复杂型FC比单纯型复发率高（54．8％（17／31）：22．2％（20／90），P＜0．005）；有家族阳性史比阴性史复发率高，为50．0％（19／38）：22．4％（17／76）（P＜0．05）。作者认为复杂型FC、家族史有FC或癫痫史者，复发2次以上者，或家距医院较远（如农村）宜用本法预防。坚持用2年以上或用到7岁。使用方法困人而异，任选一种；比法有效，安全，简便，经济，值得推广。
This article observed 130 cases of children with febrile seizures oral stability or anal injection to prevent recurrence. Observation period of 2 years. In the 75 cases of oral administration, the number of fever was 17/169 (10.1%) in the treatment group and 26/67 (8.8%) in the control group, with significant difference (P <0.005). There were significant differences (P <0.05) in 55 cases of anal injection therapy recurrence 12/123 times (9.8%), control group 5/19 times (26.3%) recurrence. There was no significant difference in the relapse rate between oral administration and anal injection (P> 0.05). In the two methods combined, the number of fever was 88 (88%) in the treatment group, 29/292 (9.9%) in the treatment group and 31/86 (36.0%) in the control group. The latter 3.6 times the former, a very significant difference (P <0.005). The recurrence rate of complicated FC was higher than that of simple type (54.8% (17/31): 22.2% (20/90), P <0.005) .0% (19/38): 22.4% (17/76) (P <0.05). The authors believe that complex FC, family history of FC or epilepsy, those who relapse more than 2 times, or home away from the hospital (such as rural areas) should be prevented by this law. Insist on using more than 2 years or 7 years old. The use of methods vary from person to person, either one; more effective than law, safe, simple and economical, it is worth promoting.