|
|
|
| Comparison of Clinical Effects of Craniotomy Clipping and Interventional Embolization in the Treatment of Cerebral Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage |
| WEI Xiao-bing, HUANG Zhe, DONG Yu-wei, et al |
| Hanzhong Central Hospital,Hanzhong Shaanxi 723000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】 To investigate the clinical effect of craniotomy clipping and interventional embolization in the treatment of cerebral aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).【Methods】 The clinical data of 96 patients with aSAH admitted to our hospital from February 2014 to may 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, they were divided into clipping group (n=41) and interventional group (n=55). The interventional group was treated with interventional embolization, and the clipping group was treated with craniotomy and clipping. The prognosis, incidence of complications, immune function and cytokine levels were compared between the two groups. 【Results】 At 7 days after operation, CD3+ and CD8+ in the interventional group were lower than those in the clipping group, while CD4+, CD4+/CD8+ in the intervention group were higher than those in the clipping group (P<0.05). Before operation, there was no significant difference in serum IL-6 and TNF-α levels between the two groups (P>0.05); 7 days after operation, the serum levels of IL-6 and TNF -α in the interventional group were lower than those in the clipping group (P<0.05). 3 months after operation, the prognosis of the interventional group was better than that of the clipping group,but there was no significant difference(P>0.05). 3 months after operation, the complication rate of the interventional group was 20.0% (11 / 55), which was lower than that of the clipping group 56.1% (23/41), the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).【Conclusion】 The clinical effect of interventional embolization in the treatment of aSAH patients is better, and it has less impact on the immune function of patients, which helps to reduce the incidence of complications, which is worthy of clinical application.
|
|
Received: 17 December 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 何国军,杜亚辉,李旭东.血管内介入栓塞治疗老年脑动脉瘤的手术效果及对Glasgow预后评分的影响[J].中国老年学杂志,2018,38(1):113-115.
[2] 张明铭,蒋宇钢.颅内动脉瘤的发病机制及生物学特征[J].医学临床研究,2016,33(7): 1365-1369.
[3] 魏琳,何静,马驰.开颅夹闭和血管栓塞在脑动脉瘤患者中的疗效对比分析[J].中外医疗,2017,36(18):1-3.
[4] 巴华军,蔡建勇.动脉瘤性蛛网膜下隙出血后脑血管痉挛的治疗及临床分析[J].中国医师进修杂志,2011,34(23):31.
[5] 张伟.开颅夹闭术与介入栓塞术对脑动脉瘤患者影响的对比研究[J].航空航天医学杂志,2018,29(9):1094-1095.
[6] 何士科. 介入栓塞术与颅内夹闭术治疗高分级动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的临床分析[J].中华全科医学,2017,15(6):974-976.
[7] 林通,谢庆海,彭涛,等.开颅夹闭术与介入栓塞术对颅内动脉瘤患者影响的对比研究[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2017,25(7):123-124.
[8] 张明宇,李欣欣,周杨.血管内介入栓塞术与开颅夹闭术治疗脑动脉瘤的效果[J].医学临床研究,2017,9( 9):117-118.
[9] 许慧峰,余吉.血管介入栓塞术与开颅夹闭术在脑动脉瘤围手术期疗效比较[J].中国卫生标准管理,2016,7(15):78-80.
[10] 温江.介入栓塞术与手术夹闭法治疗动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血临床效果的比较研究[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2016,24(1):47-50. |
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 37 
