硬通道微创穿刺引流术对高血压脑出血患者的临床效果
|
摘要
目的探讨硬通道微创穿刺引流术对高血压脑出血患者的临床治疗效果,并讨论基于该治疗方法下对患者颅内感染以及穿刺出血率的影响。方法选择2016年5月至2017年5月在本院治疗高血压脑出血患者160例作为研究对象,随机分为实验组(行硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗,80例)与对照组(行软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗,80例),比较两组患者神经功能缺损及日常生活能力评分、血肿完全清除率、颅内感染率及穿刺出血率。结果实验组患者神经功能缺损程度评分下降幅度与日常生活能力评分上升幅度均较对照组更为明显,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);实验组血肿完全清除率57.5%高于对照组30.0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);实验组颅内感染率2.5%、穿刺出血率2.5%均显著低于对照组的7.5%和10.0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论相比软通道微创穿刺引流术,硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗效果更为良好,并可以有效避免患者出现颅内感染以及穿刺出血现象,具有推广意义。
Objective Clinical effect of hard channel minimally invasive drainage for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, and discuss the effect of this method on intracranial infection and puncture bleeding rate. Methods 160 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2017 were selected as the study subjects. They were randomly divided into experimental group(hard channel minimally invasive drainage, 80 cases)and control group(soft channel minimally invasive drainage, 80 cases). The scores of neurological deficit and daily living ability, complete clearance rate of hematoma, intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate were compared between the two groups.Results The decrease of neurological deficit score and the increase of ADL score in the experimental group were more obvious than those in the control group, The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The complete clearance rate of hematoma in the experimental group(57.5%)was higher than that the control group(30.0%), The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate in the experimental group(2.5%、2.5%) were significantly lower than those the control group(7.5%、10.0%), The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion Hard channel minimally invasive drainage is better than soft channel minimally invasive drainage, It can effectively avoid intracranial infection and puncture bleeding phenomenon, and has the significance of popularization.
Objective Clinical effect of hard channel minimally invasive drainage for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, and discuss the effect of this method on intracranial infection and puncture bleeding rate. Methods 160 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage in our hospital from May 2016 to May 2017 were selected as the study subjects. They were randomly divided into experimental group(hard channel minimally invasive drainage, 80 cases)and control group(soft channel minimally invasive drainage, 80 cases). The scores of neurological deficit and daily living ability, complete clearance rate of hematoma, intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate were compared between the two groups.Results The decrease of neurological deficit score and the increase of ADL score in the experimental group were more obvious than those in the control group, The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The complete clearance rate of hematoma in the experimental group(57.5%)was higher than that the control group(30.0%), The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate in the experimental group(2.5%、2.5%) were significantly lower than those the control group(7.5%、10.0%), The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion Hard channel minimally invasive drainage is better than soft channel minimally invasive drainage, It can effectively avoid intracranial infection and puncture bleeding phenomenon, and has the significance of popularization.
引文
[1]王广山.硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血对血肿清除率及神经功能改善的影响[J].中国实用医药,2017,12(24):48-49.
[2]张红星.软通道与硬通道微创穿刺引流术于高血压脑出血患者中应用效果对比[J].国际医药卫生导报,2018,22(4):500-503.
[3]苗虎.硬通道穿刺引流术联合尿激酶治疗脑出血97例[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2017,22(10):733-733.
[4]岑茂良,蒋礼源,陈光,等.改良立体定向软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压壳核脑出血的疗效观察[J].广西医科大学学报,2017,34(2):257-261.
[5]赵亮.小骨窗开颅术治疗中等量基底节区高血压脑出血疗效观察[J].当代医学,2015,21(3):101-102.
[6]罗铸.硬通道微创穿刺引流术对高血压脑出血患者治疗效果颅内感染率及穿刺出血率的影响[J].河北医学,2017,23(2):312-314.
[7]贾向军,王威.软或硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的临床效果[J].医疗装备,2016,29(15):10-11.
[8]陈成勇,黄齐兵.高血压脑出血伴脑疝应用微创穿刺引流、开颅血肿清除术治疗对疗效和预后影响观察[J].当代医学,2018,24(14):27-29.
[2]张红星.软通道与硬通道微创穿刺引流术于高血压脑出血患者中应用效果对比[J].国际医药卫生导报,2018,22(4):500-503.
[3]苗虎.硬通道穿刺引流术联合尿激酶治疗脑出血97例[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2017,22(10):733-733.
[4]岑茂良,蒋礼源,陈光,等.改良立体定向软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压壳核脑出血的疗效观察[J].广西医科大学学报,2017,34(2):257-261.
[5]赵亮.小骨窗开颅术治疗中等量基底节区高血压脑出血疗效观察[J].当代医学,2015,21(3):101-102.
[6]罗铸.硬通道微创穿刺引流术对高血压脑出血患者治疗效果颅内感染率及穿刺出血率的影响[J].河北医学,2017,23(2):312-314.
[7]贾向军,王威.软或硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的临床效果[J].医疗装备,2016,29(15):10-11.
[8]陈成勇,黄齐兵.高血压脑出血伴脑疝应用微创穿刺引流、开颅血肿清除术治疗对疗效和预后影响观察[J].当代医学,2018,24(14):27-29.