|
|
|
| A Comparative Study of Therapeutic Effects and Safety Among Small Bone Flap Craniotomy, Traditional Craniotomy, Repanation and Drainage in Patients with Hypertensive Cerebral Hemorrhage |
| ZHU Xing-quan, WU Qing |
| 1st Department of Surgery, the People's Hospital of Chongqing Shapingba District, Chongqing 400030 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To compare and analyze the therapeutic effects and safety of small bone flap craniotomy, traditional craniotomy, repanation and drainage in patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage.【Methods】The clinical data of 150 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage treated in our hospital from June 2012 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed and patients were divided into group A (63 cases), group B (30 cases), group C (57 cases), according to the different treatment methods. Patients in the group A were treated with small bone flap craniotomy, patients in the group B were treated with traditional craniotomy, and patients in the group C were treated with trepanation and drainage. Then the curative effect, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, GSS, ADL score and prognosis of the three groups were compared and analyzed.【Results】The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay in the group B were higher than those in the groups A and C (P<0.05); The operation time in the group A was longer than that in the group C (P<0.05), but the intraoperative blood loss and the hospitalization time of the group A and the group C had no significant difference (P>0.05). GSS scores of the three groups at 3 months post-operation decreased, while ADL scores increased (P<0.05); The GSS scores in the group A were higher than those in the group B and C at 3 months after operation, and the ADL scores in the group A were lower than those in the group B and C (P<0.05), moreover no significant difference was found in the GSS and ADL scores between the group B and the group C at 3 months post-operation (P>0.05); The total incidence of postoperative complications in the group B was significantly higher than that in the group A and the group C (P<0.05), while no significant difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications between the group A and the group C (P>0.05); The good prognosis rate of the group B was significantly lower than that of the group A and C (P<0.05), with no significant difference between the group A and the group C (P>0.05); The total effective treatment of the group B and C was slightly higher than that of the group A, but there was no statistical difference between the three groups (P>0.05).【Conclusion】The comparison among small bone flap craniotomy, traditional craniotomy, repanation and drainage shows that each treatment has its own advantages and disadvantages, the application should combined with patient's condition.
|
|
Received: 22 January 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 何晓云.大骨瓣开颅血肿清除术、小骨窗显微血肿清除术和钻孔血肿抽吸引流术治疗高血压脑出血临床疗效对比观察[J].临床和实验医学杂志,2016,15(16):1612-1614.
[2] 罗成军,王山,张召,等.三种手术方式治疗高血压脑出血的临床疗效比较[J].检验医学与临床,2017,14(20):2999-3002.
[3] 胡曙辉,张晨.依达拉奉联合小骨窗开颅术与常规骨瓣开颅术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效及安全性分析[J].贵州医药,2017,41(7):693-695.
[4] 张浩,孙新梅,徐静.小骨窗开颅术与大骨瓣开颅术治疗中等量高血压脑出血的临床疗效观察[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2015,19(10):634-635.
[5] 黎法利.不同出血量采用小骨窗开颅与常规骨瓣开颅治疗高血压脑出血有效性探讨[J].安徽医药,2017,18(4):653-655.
[6] 韩繁龙,张国来,吴生贵,等.小骨窗与大骨瓣开颅血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效分析[J].现代生物医学进展,2016,16(33):6542-6545.
[7] 范广明,张文,毛振立.神经内镜微创手术与小骨窗开颅显微手术治疗幕上高血压脑出血的临床效果[J].解放军医药杂志,2017,29(1):90-93.
[8] 李秋霖,陈卉.微创血肿穿刺术后联合依达拉奉对高血压脑出血疗效和认知功能及血清炎性因子水平的影响[J].解放军医药杂志,2017,29(5):45-48.
[9] 胡海成,黄好峰,李习珍,等.不同骨瓣开颅治疗高血压脑出血的疗效比较[J].蚌埠医学院学报,2015,40(4):458-460.
[10] 王朝侠,王颖.高血压脑出血患者血清肿瘤坏死因子-α、白细胞介素-6 与血管内皮生长因子的表达[J].临床误诊误治,2017,30(8):86-89.
[11] 张剑,刘民,周勤伟.小骨窗显微开颅术与传统开颅术治疗高血压脑出血的临床疗效比较[J].立体定向和功能性神经外科杂志,2015,29(6):350-353.
[12] 司金春,肖志强,许志杰,等.颞部小骨窗血肿清除术与传统大骨瓣开颅治疗基底节区高血压性脑出血合并脑疝的疗效对比[J].中国医师杂志,2015,17(1):106-108. |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 35(5): 970-969. |
|
|
|
|
2018, Vol. 35 
