[1]廖林生.常规开颅对比钻孔引流对基底节区脑出血患者神经功能缺损及预后的影响[J].医学信息,2024,37(06):147-150.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.06.026]
　LIAO Lin-sheng.Effects of Conventional Craniotomy and Drilling Drainage on Neurological Deficits and Prognosis in Patients with Hypertensive Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(06):147-150.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.06.026]
点击复制

常规开颅对比钻孔引流对基底节区脑出血患者神经功能缺损及预后的影响()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
37卷
期数:
2024年06期
页码:
147-150
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2024-03-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Effects of Conventional Craniotomy and Drilling Drainage on Neurological Deficits and Prognosis in Patients with Hypertensive Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage
文章编号:
1006-1959（2024）06-0147-04
作者:
廖林生
（大余县人民医院神经外科，江西 大余 341500）
Author(s):
LIAO Lin-sheng
(Department of Neurosurgery,Dayu County People’s Hospital,Dayu 341500,Jiangxi,China)
关键词:
基底节区脑出血; 开颅血肿清除术; 钻孔引流术; 神经功能
Keywords:
Hypertensive basal ganglia hemorrhage; Craniotomy hematoma removal; Drilling drainage; Neurological function
分类号:
R743.34
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.06.026
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 对比常规开颅与钻孔引流对基底节区脑出血（HBGH）患者神经功能缺损及预后的影响。方法 以2019年2月-2022年2月大余县人民医院收治的58例HBGH患者为研究对象，经随机数字表法分为开颅组（29例）与钻孔组（29例），开颅组行常规开颅血肿清除术治疗，钻孔组则采用钻孔引流术治疗，比较两组手术相关指标（手术时间、血肿清除率、术后住院时间）、术后再出血及并发症情况、神经功能缺损程度、预后情况[格拉斯预后评分（GOS）、改良 Barthel 指数（MBI）]。结果 两组血肿清除率对比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但钻孔组手术时间、术后住院时间短于开颅组（P＜0.05）。两组术后再出血率对比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但钻孔组并发症发生率低于开颅组（P＜0.05）。术后6个月，两组神经功能缺损程度比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05），两组GOS评分对比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但钻孔组MBI评分高于开颅组（P＜0.05）。结论 常规开颅与钻孔引流在HBGH治疗中均具有确切作用，二者血肿清除效果相当，预后一致，但后者手术时间更短、术后恢复更快、并发症风险更低，更有利于患者神经功能与预后的改善。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the effects of conventional craniotomy and drilling drainage on neurological deficits and prognosis in patients with hypertensive basal ganglia hemorrhage (HBGH).Methods A total of 58 patients with HBGH admitted to Dayu County People’s Hospital from February 2019 to February 2022 were enrolled in the study. They were divided into craniotomy group (29 patients) and drilling group (29 patients) by random number table method. The craniotomy group was treated with conventional craniotomy hematoma removal, while the drilling group was treated with drilling drainage. The operation-related indicators (operation time, hematoma clearance rate, postoperative hospital stay), postoperative rebleeding and complications, degree of neurological deficits, and prognosis [Glass prognostic score (GOS), modified Barthel index (MBI)] were compared between the two groups.Results There was no significant difference in hematoma clearance rate between the two groups (P>0.05), but the operation time and postoperative hospital stay in the drilling group were shorter than those in the craniotomy group (P<0.05), but the incidence of complications in the drilling group was lower than that in the craniotomy group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative rebleeding rate between the two groups (P>0.05), but the incidence of complications in the drilling group was lower than that in the craniotomy group (P<0.05).At 6 months after operation, there was significant difference in the degree of neurological deficit between the two groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in GOS score between the two groups (P>0.05), but the MBI score of the drilling group was higher than that of the craniotomy group (P<0.05).Conclusion Conventional craniotomy and drilling drainage have definite effects in the treatment of HBGH. The hematoma removal effect of the two is similar and the prognosis is consistent. However, the latter has shorter operation time, faster postoperative recovery and lower risk of complications, which is more conducive to the improvement of neurological function and prognosis of patients.

参考文献/References:

[1]霍健,范家权,顾磊,等.不同手术治疗基底节区高血压脑出血临床疗效及对mRS评分的影响[J].川北医学院学报,2022,37(1):99-102.[2]张谦生,周江朝,吴进松,等.超早期立体定向钻孔引流术治疗中等量高血压性基底节出血的疗效观察[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2022,27(6):482-483.[3]王虎成,张荣军,张宏兵,等.颅骨锥孔穿刺引流术与钻孔穿刺引流术治疗中等量高血压脑出血的前瞻性对照研究[J].中国临床医生杂志,2023,51(2):201-204.[4]俞聪,梁君.局麻下钻孔引流术治疗基底节区中等量脑出血[J].国际神经病学神经外科学杂志,2021,48(6):534-537.[5]赵保祥,赵赛赛,李中林.经侧裂血肿清除术与经颞部微创钻孔引流术治疗中等量高血压基底节区脑出血的疗效对比[J].徐州医科大学学报,2021,41(9):667-671.[6]买买江·阿不力孜,依马木·依达依吐拉,向兴刚,等.微创穿刺引流联合开颅血肿清除术对高血压脑出血合并脑疝患者神经功能、炎症反应及脑部血流的影响[J].现代生物医学进展,2021,21(15):2906-2910.[7]曾晖,朱明亮,袁晖,等.微创钻孔引流术对高血压脑出血患者近期疗效及颅内感染、血肿再扩大的影响[J].现代生物医学进展,2021,21(1):170-173.[8]付光辉,刘全,覃军,等.微创钻孔引流术和小骨窗颅内血肿清除术对高血压性基底节区中等量脑出血的疗效和预后比较[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志,2020,19(6):414-418.[9]王国文,黄志刚,靳腾龙,等.神经导航下钻孔引流术治疗高血压性基底节区出血的疗效分析[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2020,25(6):390-391.[10]田军,周向辉,屈浙,等.开颅血肿清除联合钻孔引流术治疗高血压脑出血[J].中国临床研究,2018,31(9):1202-1205.[11]周艳,夏莉君,陈映.立体定向微创穿刺置管引流与开颅血肿清除手术治疗基底核区脑出血疗效比较[J].神经损伤与功能重建,2020,15(2):118-119.[12]Takada A,Saito K,Sakai K.Dissecting lesions in a culprit artery of a hemorrhagic focus in the basal ganglia: Histopathological analysis by serial sectioning[J].Neuropathology,2021,41(4):301-305.[13]赵杰.钻孔引流术治疗高血压致基底节区出血150例临床体会[J].山西医药杂志,2018,47(19):2317-2319.[14]柳爱军,王玉华,宋金东,等.CT定位下微创穿刺引流术对中等量基底节区高血压脑出血患者血管内皮功能及预后的影响[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2019,28(31):3444-3449.[15]李刚,刘晓,马俊杰,等.微创钻孔引流术治疗中等量基底核区高血压脑出血的疗效分析及预后的影响[J].立体定向和功能性神经外科杂志,2019,32(5):311-313.[16]杨荣,石力涛,申亚凡.早期颅内血肿微创清除术对轻中度基底核区高血压脑出血患者神经功能及认知功能的影响[J].临床误诊误治,2019,32(6):92-95.[17]张建辉,蔡欣汝,李鹏,等.锥颅引流术与小骨窗开颅术治疗高血压基底节区脑出血的临床疗效及对近期预后的影响[J].中西医结合心脑血管病杂志,2019,17(8):1262-1264.[18]郑玺,孙敦鑫,殷捷.两种不同手术方式治疗对高血压基底节区脑出血患者围术期指标ADL评分及术后并发症的影响[J].河北医学,2019,25(3):618-623.[19]王首杰,蔡青,秦怀洲,等.微创钻孔引流术对高血压脑出血病人脑血流参数和血清神经功能指标的影响[J].实用老年医学,2020,34(3):237-240,245.[20]Guo W,Liu H,Tan Z,et al.Comparison of endoscopic evacuation, stereotactic aspiration, and craniotomy for treatment of basal ganglia hemorrhage[J].Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery,2020,12(1):55-61.[21]罗会选,相毅.颅脑钻孔引流术治疗重度颅脑损伤并发高血压脑出血的疗效及对患者神经功能的影响[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版),2018,15(3):156-159.[22]许永刚,黄亮,张罡.颅脑钻孔引流术对中老年重度颅脑损伤并发高血压脑出血患者神经功能的影响[J].实用临床医药杂志,2018,22(3):19-22.[23]孙昭胜,赵旺淼,葛春燕,等.开颅血肿清除术和钻孔引流术治疗中等量基底核区高血压脑出血的临床疗效比较研究[J].中国全科医学,2018,21(6):702-706.[24]黄勇,朱安林,刘虓,等.经额部微创钻孔引流术治疗基底核区高血压性脑出血临床疗效及再出血影响因素分析[J].脑与神经疾病杂志,2019,27(6):381-384.[25]梅赞,张海军,乔建勇.开颅手术与细孔引流术治疗高血压基底节区脑出血的疗效比较[J].神经损伤与功能重建,2019,14(11):562-564.

相似文献/References:

[1]郭晓泉.胞磷胆碱注射液联合微创穿刺引流术治疗对中等量高血压性基底节区脑出血患者脑水肿、血清AQP4的影响[J].医学信息,2024,37(24):48.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.24.013]
　GUO Xiaoquan.Effect of Citicoline Injection Combined with Minimally Invasive Puncture Drainage on Brain Edema and Serum AQP4 in Patients with Moderate Hypertensive Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(06):48.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.24.013]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01