腰大池-腹腔分流术与侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水临床效果的对比分析
|
摘要
目的对比并分析腰大池-腹腔分流术与侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的临床效果。方法 76例交通性脑积水患者,随机分为观察组和对照组,各38例。对照组给予侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗,观察组给予腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗。观察并比较两组患者治疗效果、并发症发生率。结果观察组显效11例、有效25例、无效2例;对照组显效10例、有效19例、无效9例。观察组治疗总有效率(94.74%)高于对照组(76.32%),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对照组发生堵管8例、引流过度6例、感染4例;观察组发生堵管3例、引流过度2例、感染1例。观察组并发症发生率(15.79%)低于对照组(47.37%),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在治疗交通性脑积水时,采用腰大池-腹腔分流术的治疗效果优于侧脑室-腹腔分流术,并发症少,可以在临床中推广应用。
Objective To compare and analyze the clinical effect of lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt and lateral ventricle-peritoneal shunt in the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus. Methods A total of 76 patients with communicating hydrocephalus were randomly divided into observation group and control group, with 38 cases in each group. The control group was treated with lateral ventricle-peritoneal shunt, and the observation group was treated with lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt. The treatment effect and incidence of complications in two groups was observed and compared. Results The observation group had 11 excellent cases, 25 effective cases, and 2 ineffective cases, while the control group had 10 excellent cases, 19 effective cases, and 9 ineffective cases. The observation group had higher total treatment effective rate(94.74%) than the control group(76.32%), and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The control group had 8 cases of blockage, 6 cases of excessive drainage and 4 cases of infection, while the observation group had 3 cases of blockage, 2 cases of excessive drainage and 1 case of infection. The observation group had lower incidence of complications(15.79%) than the control group(47.37%), and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus, the effect of lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt is better than that of lateral ventricleperitoneal shunt. It has fewer complications, and can be popularized and applied in clinic.
Objective To compare and analyze the clinical effect of lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt and lateral ventricle-peritoneal shunt in the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus. Methods A total of 76 patients with communicating hydrocephalus were randomly divided into observation group and control group, with 38 cases in each group. The control group was treated with lateral ventricle-peritoneal shunt, and the observation group was treated with lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt. The treatment effect and incidence of complications in two groups was observed and compared. Results The observation group had 11 excellent cases, 25 effective cases, and 2 ineffective cases, while the control group had 10 excellent cases, 19 effective cases, and 9 ineffective cases. The observation group had higher total treatment effective rate(94.74%) than the control group(76.32%), and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The control group had 8 cases of blockage, 6 cases of excessive drainage and 4 cases of infection, while the observation group had 3 cases of blockage, 2 cases of excessive drainage and 1 case of infection. The observation group had lower incidence of complications(15.79%) than the control group(47.37%), and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of communicating hydrocephalus, the effect of lumbar cistern-peritoneal shunt is better than that of lateral ventricleperitoneal shunt. It has fewer complications, and can be popularized and applied in clinic.
引文
[1]鲁军体,王娜,刘炎伟,等.腰大池腹腔分流术与侧脑室腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水患者的效果比较.检验医学与临床,2017,14(10):1429-1430,1433.
[2]黄剑,魏长新,陈苑新,等.体外可调压微创腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的疗效及并发症研究.现代诊断与治疗,2015,26(5):1077-1078.
[3]郭辉,黄旭,林贵军.无气腹单孔腹腔镜辅助侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水.中国微侵袭神经外科杂志,2016,18(11):493-495.
[4]叶飞宣.腰大池-腹腔分流术与脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的临床比较.现代诊断与治疗,2017,28(12):2168-2169.
[5]吴俊波.腰大池-腹腔分流术与侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水临床效果的对比研究.实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2015(3):83-85.
[6]黄伟,刘翔,李逢培.经皮穿刺腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的对比研究.黑龙江医学,2012,36(6):427-429.
[7]李勐.体外可调压分流管经皮穿刺腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水临床效果评价.中国现代药物应用,2016,10(9):58-59.
[8]沈爱炜.可调压腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水.浙江创伤外科,2015(6):1176-1177.
[2]黄剑,魏长新,陈苑新,等.体外可调压微创腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的疗效及并发症研究.现代诊断与治疗,2015,26(5):1077-1078.
[3]郭辉,黄旭,林贵军.无气腹单孔腹腔镜辅助侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水.中国微侵袭神经外科杂志,2016,18(11):493-495.
[4]叶飞宣.腰大池-腹腔分流术与脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的临床比较.现代诊断与治疗,2017,28(12):2168-2169.
[5]吴俊波.腰大池-腹腔分流术与侧脑室-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水临床效果的对比研究.实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2015(3):83-85.
[6]黄伟,刘翔,李逢培.经皮穿刺腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水的对比研究.黑龙江医学,2012,36(6):427-429.
[7]李勐.体外可调压分流管经皮穿刺腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水临床效果评价.中国现代药物应用,2016,10(9):58-59.
[8]沈爱炜.可调压腰大池-腹腔分流术治疗交通性脑积水.浙江创伤外科,2015(6):1176-1177.