中国麻风皮肤病杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (3): 151-154.doi: 10.12144/zgmfskin202003151

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

云南勐腊县391例麻风新发病人畸残影响因素分析

文红华1,马灵1,刘华兴1,张琪1,四飘1,吕锡宏2   

  1. 1勐腊县疾病预防控制中心，云南西双版纳，666300；
    2上海市松江区疾病预防控制中心，上海，201620
  • 出版日期:2020-03-15 发布日期:2020-03-30
  • 通讯作者: 吕锡宏，E-mail：xihonglv@126.com

Analysis on disability factors of 391 new leprosy cases in Mengla county, Yunnan province

WEN Honghua1, MA Ling1, LIU Huaxing1, ZHANG Qi1, SI Piao1, LYU Xihong2   

  1. 1 Mengla Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Xishuangbanna 666300, China; 2 Songjiang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201620, China
  • Online:2020-03-15 Published:2020-03-30
  • Contact: LYU Xihong, E-mail: xihonglv@126.com

PDF (PC)

85

摘要： 目的：分析勐腊县近70年麻风新发患者畸残情况及影响因素。方法：收集勐腊县历年麻风患者资料，采用二元logistic回归分析方法分析麻风畸残的影响因素。结果：共分析勐腊县麻风患者391例，麻风新发病例畸残率46.04%（180/391），其中2 级畸残率44.50%（174/391）。延迟期2～5年、5～10年、≥10年的麻风患者发生畸残风险分别是延迟期＜2年的2.49倍（P=0.018）、4.8倍（P＜0.001）和14.56倍（P＜0.001）；家外传染的麻风畸残风险是家内传染的1.93倍（P=0.030）；有麻风反应的麻风畸残风险是没有反应的2.36倍（P=0.010）；神经损害数2～4条和＞4条的麻风畸残风险分别是神经损害1条的3.37倍（P=0.029）和5.09倍（P=0.009）。结论：勐腊县麻风畸残的危险因素主要有延迟期、家外传染、麻风反应、神经损害数。

关键词: 麻风, 畸残, 影响因素

Abstract: Objective: To analyze disabilities and influencing factors among 391 newly diagnosed leprosy cases in Mengla county, Yunnan province in the past 70 years. Methods: The original data of leprosy patients was collected and the influencing factors of leprosy disabilities were analyzed by binary logistic regression analysis. Results: The disability rate among the 391 leprosy patients was 46.04% (180/391), of which grade-2 disability rate was 44.50% （174/391）. The disability risks were 2.491 times, 4.8 times and 14.56 times among the patients with delayed periods of 2-5 years，5-10 years and ≥10 years when compared to those with a delay < 2 years，respectively. The disability risk in the patients with a family history was 1.93 times higher than those without family history (P=0.030). The disability risk among the patients with leprosy reaction was 2.36 times higher than those without leprosy reaction (P=0.010). The disability risks among the patients with more than 2-4 nerve damages or ≥ 4 never damage were 3.67 times (P=0.029) and 5.019 times (P=0.009) than those with one nerve damage, respectively. Conclusion: The main risk factors of leprosy disability in Mengla county were diagnosis delay, with a family history, leprosy reaction and more than 2 nerve damage in the time of diagnosis. 

Key words: leprosy, disability, influencing factors