颅内微创血肿清除术与传统开颅清除血肿手术对高血压脑出血的效果分析
|
摘要
目的观察颅内微创血肿清除术与传统开颅清除血肿手术对高血压脑出血的治疗效果。方法选取2015年1月—2018年12月该院140例接受外科手术治疗的高血压脑出血患者,按照随机抽签法平分为对照组和观察组,各70例,对照组实施传统开颅清除血肿手术治疗,观察组实施颅内微创血肿清除术治疗,观察两组患者治疗后的临床疗效、神经功能缺损评分(FAM)、颅内压力(ICP)、术后并发症发生率、住院费用及住院时间。结果观察组优良率78.57%高于对照组57.14%(χ~2=7.368,P<0.05),观察组FAM(15.66±2.44)分高于对照组(t=7.920,P<0.05),观察组ICP和对照组对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后并发症发生率(14.29%)低于对照组(38.57%)(χ~2=10.617,P<0.05);且观察组住院费用及住院时间均少于对照组(P<0.05)。结论相比传统开颅清除血肿手术,高血压脑出血患者选择颅内微创血肿清除术治疗疗效更佳,不仅缩短住院时间和减少住院费用,神经功能和颅内压还有所改善,且安全可靠,适于临床应用。
Objective To observe the therapeutic effect of intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation and traditional craniotomy to remove hematoma. Methods From January 2015 to December 2018, 140 patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage who under-went surgical treatment in our hospital were randomly divided into control group and observation group according to random sampling method, 70 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional craniotomy hematoma surgery, the observation group was treated with intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation, and the clinical efficacy, neurological deficit score(FAM), in-tracranial pressure(ICP), postoperative complication rate, and hospitalization cost and hospitalization time of the two groups were ob-served. Results The excellent and good rate of observation group was 78.57% higher than that of the control group 57.14%( χ~2=7.368,P<0.05). The observation group FAM(15.66±2.44)points was higher than the control group(t=7.920, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the control group and the control group(P >0.05). The postoperative complication rate in the observation group(14.29%) was lower than that in the control group(38.57%)(χ~2=10.617, P<0.05). The hospital stay was less than the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional craniotomy for hematoma evacuation, patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage have better intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation, which not only shortens hospital stay and hospitalization costs, but also improves neurological function and intracranial pressure, safe and reliable, suitable for clinical applications.
Objective To observe the therapeutic effect of intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation and traditional craniotomy to remove hematoma. Methods From January 2015 to December 2018, 140 patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage who under-went surgical treatment in our hospital were randomly divided into control group and observation group according to random sampling method, 70 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional craniotomy hematoma surgery, the observation group was treated with intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation, and the clinical efficacy, neurological deficit score(FAM), in-tracranial pressure(ICP), postoperative complication rate, and hospitalization cost and hospitalization time of the two groups were ob-served. Results The excellent and good rate of observation group was 78.57% higher than that of the control group 57.14%( χ~2=7.368,P<0.05). The observation group FAM(15.66±2.44)points was higher than the control group(t=7.920, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the control group and the control group(P >0.05). The postoperative complication rate in the observation group(14.29%) was lower than that in the control group(38.57%)(χ~2=10.617, P<0.05). The hospital stay was less than the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional craniotomy for hematoma evacuation, patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage have better intracranial minimally invasive hematoma evacuation, which not only shortens hospital stay and hospitalization costs, but also improves neurological function and intracranial pressure, safe and reliable, suitable for clinical applications.
引文
[1]郑军,甄志勇,党涛.高血压脑出血患者的微创手术及开颅血肿清除术治疗效果比较[J].中华肿瘤防治杂志,2016,22(s1):255-256.
[2]葛新,陈晓雷,孙吉庆,等.神经内镜微创手术与开颅血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血疗效比较[J].中国神经精神疾病杂志,2016,42(10):605-608.
[3]许瑛.护理干预应用于微创颅内血肿清除术的临床效果[J].中华全科医学,2016,14(3):494-495.
[4]罗俊杰,戴永建,吕伟,等.开颅手术与神经内镜治疗高血压脑出血的疗效比较[J].广西医科大学学报,2016,33(1):135-137.
[5]丁宇,李军凤,周鸣,等.微创颅内血肿抽吸术对高血压脑出血患者B型脑钠肽、C反应蛋白、同型半胱氨酸及生活质量的影响[J].成都医学院学报,2017,12(5):585-589.
[6]叶富跃,杨堃,郑传宜,等.颅内微创血肿清除术与传统开颅清除血肿手术在高血压脑出血中的应用效果分析[J].河北医学, 2016, 22(1):17-20.
[7]符星,李斌,黄奇武,等.微创颅内血肿清除术与传统开颅术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效比较[J].中国现代医药杂志, 2017,19(3):64-65.
[8]张久德,王夏莲,孙启岗.微创颅内血肿清除术应用于高血压脑出血治疗中的临床效果分析[J].临床医学研究与实践, 2017(30):64-65.
[2]葛新,陈晓雷,孙吉庆,等.神经内镜微创手术与开颅血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血疗效比较[J].中国神经精神疾病杂志,2016,42(10):605-608.
[3]许瑛.护理干预应用于微创颅内血肿清除术的临床效果[J].中华全科医学,2016,14(3):494-495.
[4]罗俊杰,戴永建,吕伟,等.开颅手术与神经内镜治疗高血压脑出血的疗效比较[J].广西医科大学学报,2016,33(1):135-137.
[5]丁宇,李军凤,周鸣,等.微创颅内血肿抽吸术对高血压脑出血患者B型脑钠肽、C反应蛋白、同型半胱氨酸及生活质量的影响[J].成都医学院学报,2017,12(5):585-589.
[6]叶富跃,杨堃,郑传宜,等.颅内微创血肿清除术与传统开颅清除血肿手术在高血压脑出血中的应用效果分析[J].河北医学, 2016, 22(1):17-20.
[7]符星,李斌,黄奇武,等.微创颅内血肿清除术与传统开颅术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效比较[J].中国现代医药杂志, 2017,19(3):64-65.
[8]张久德,王夏莲,孙启岗.微创颅内血肿清除术应用于高血压脑出血治疗中的临床效果分析[J].临床医学研究与实践, 2017(30):64-65.