|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]黎炳润,罗赛华,江庆炎.硬通道和软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的可行性及安全性比较[J].慢性病学杂志,2018,(10):1341-1343.
　LI Bing-run,LUO Sai-hua,JIANG Qing-yan.Feasibility and safety comparison of minimally invasive drainage and soft channel minimally invasive drainage for the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage[J].,2018,(10):1341-1343.
点击复制

硬通道和软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的可行性及安全性比较(PDF)

《慢性病学杂志》[ISSN:1674-8166/CN:11-5900/R]

卷:
期数:
2018年10期
页码:
1341-1343
栏目:
论　著
出版日期:
2018-10-19

文章信息/Info

Title:
Feasibility and safety comparison of minimally invasive drainage and soft channel minimally invasive drainage for the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage
作者:
黎炳润;  罗赛华;  江庆炎
廉江市人民医院神经外科二区，广西廉江524400
Author(s):
LI Bing-run;  LUO Sai-hua;  JIANG Qing-yan
Department of Neurosurgery, Lianjiang People's Hospital, Lianjiang 524400, China Corresponding author: LI Bing-run, E-mail: Libingrun@163.com
关键词:
硬通道微创穿刺引流术; 软通道微创穿刺引流术; 高血压脑出血; 治疗效果
Keywords:
Hard channel minimally invasive puncture drainage;  Soft channel minimally invasive drainage;  Hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage;  Treatment effect
分类号:
R743
DOI:
-
摘要:
目的比较硬通道微创穿刺引流术和软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的可行性及安全性，为临 床治疗提供参考。方法选取2015 年4 月—2017 年4 月廉江市人民医院收治的84 例高血压脑出血患者作为研究 对象，按照随机数字法分为硬通道组和软通道组，每组42 例，其中硬通道组患者采用硬通道微创穿刺引流术治 疗，软通道组患者采用软通道微创穿刺引流术治疗，观察比较两组患者治疗总有效率、神经功能缺损评分、日常 生活能力评分、血肿完全清除比例、颅内感染率和穿刺出血率。结果硬通道组治疗总有效率90.48%高于软通 道组的66.67% （P<0.05），神经功能缺损评分（20.2±3.1） 分明显低于软通道组的（45.3±5.2） 分（P<0.05）， 日常生活能力评分（45.6±4.8） 分明显高于软通道组的（12.4±1.1） 分（P<0.05），血肿完全清除率57.14%高于 软通道组的30.95% （P<0.05）。两组的颅内感染率和穿刺出血率比较，硬通道组均低于软通道组，差异有统计学 意义（P<0.05）。结论硬通道微创穿刺引流术在治疗高血压脑出血时的可行性及安全性更高，可有效改善患者 的相关症状，促进患者预后。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive hard puncture drainage and minimally invasive soft puncture drainage for treating hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, provide a basis for clinical treatment. Methods Totally 84 patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage who were treated in Lianjiang People's Hospital from April 2015 to April 2017 were selected as the subjects. They were divided into hard channel group and soft channel group according to the random number method, each 42 patients. Hard channel group received hard- channel minimally invasive puncture drainage, but soft channel group received soft-passage minimally invasive puncture and drainage. The relevant clinical data of patients in two groups were observed and recorded, including the total treatment efficiency, neurological deficit score, daily living ability score, the proportion of complete hematoma removal, intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate. Results The total effective rate of treatment in the hard-channel group was significantly higher than that in the soft-channel group （90.48% vs. 66.67%, P<0.05） . The neurological deficit scores in hard-channel group was significantly lower than that in soft-channel group （20.2±3.1 scores vs. 45.3±5.2 scores, P<0.05） . The scores of daily living ability of patients in hard-channel group were significantly higher than that in soft-channelgroup （45.6±4.8 scores vs. 12.4±1.1 scores, P<0.05） . The hematoma removal rate of hard-channel group was higher than that of the soft-channel group （57.14% vs. 30.95%, P<0.05） . Intracranial infection rate and puncture bleeding rate in hard channel group were statistically lower than those in the soft channel group （P<0.05） . Conclusion Hard-channel minimally invasive puncture drainage is more feasible and safer in the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage. It can effectively improve the patient's related symptoms and the prognosis of patients.

参考文献/References:


[1] 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):312-315.
[2] 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.
[3] Chen CX. Stereotactic soft channel minimally invasive hematoma puncture drainage combined with urokinase clot lysis in treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage [J]. China Medical Engineering, 2016,20(3):281-284.
[4] 道日娜,虞猛. 软、硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的 临床效果对比[J].中国医院药学杂志,2018,3(36):1204-1220.
[5] 管雪军.软、硬通道微创穿刺引流术治疗高血压脑出血的效果和 适应证分析[J].中外医学研究,2017,15(28):154-155.
[6] 杨志华.软通道与硬通道微创穿刺引流在高血压脑出血中的治疗 效果比较[J].吉林医学,2015,36(9):1845-1846.
[7] 韩书清,戴芹,王章勇,等. 微创软通道与硬通道手术治疗幕上高 血压脑出血的临床对比研究[J]. 神经损伤与功能重建,2017,12 (3):260-261.
[8] Liu XH. The Study of Feasibility and Safety of the Treatment Minimally Invasive Drainage with Hard Channel on Hypertensive Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage [J]. Medical Innovation of China, 2016,13(7):308-310.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介：黎炳润，大学本科，主治医师，研究方向：神经外科 通信作者：黎炳润，E-mail: Libingrun@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2018-10-30