徐兴华, 陈晓雷, 刘磊, 武琛, 张军, 许百男. 高血压脑出血神经内镜手术与传统开颅手术疗效比较[J]. 解放军医学院学报, 2015, 36(4): 309-312. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5227.2015.04.003
引用本文: 徐兴华, 陈晓雷, 刘磊, 武琛, 张军, 许百男. 高血压脑出血神经内镜手术与传统开颅手术疗效比较[J]. 解放军医学院学报, 2015, 36(4): 309-312. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5227.2015.04.003
XU Xinghua, CHEN Xiaolei, LIU Lei, WU Chen, ZHANG Jun, XU Bainan. Endoscopic surgery with traditional craniotomy in management of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: A comparative study[J]. ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF CHINESE PLA MEDICAL SCHOOL, 2015, 36(4): 309-312. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5227.2015.04.003
Citation: XU Xinghua, CHEN Xiaolei, LIU Lei, WU Chen, ZHANG Jun, XU Bainan. Endoscopic surgery with traditional craniotomy in management of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: A comparative study[J]. ACADEMIC JOURNAL OF CHINESE PLA MEDICAL SCHOOL, 2015, 36(4): 309-312. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5227.2015.04.003

高血压脑出血神经内镜手术与传统开颅手术疗效比较

Endoscopic surgery with traditional craniotomy in management of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: A comparative study

  • 摘要: 目的 比较高血压脑出血神经内镜血肿清除与开颅手术血肿清除的疗效和预后。 方法 总结我院神经外科2009年6月-2013年12月收治的164例幕上高血压脑出血患者,分别采用神经内镜清除血肿(89例)和开颅手术清除血肿(75例),比较两组患者血肿清除率、手术时间、手术失血量、术后1周格拉斯哥评分(glasgow coma scale,GCS)、住院天数和术后6个月改良Rankins (modified rankin scale,mRS)评分的差异。 结果 内镜组与开颅组术前资料差异无统计学意义(P均> 0.05)。血肿清除率:内镜组90.3%±5.6%,开颅组82.1%±8.3%(P< 0.01);手术时间:内镜组(1.7±0.8) h,开颅组(5.1±1.6) h (P< 0.01);手术失血量:内镜组(94.4±99.1) ml,开颅组(610.7±612.7) ml (P< 0.01);术后1周GCS评分:内镜组11.6±3.3,开颅组8.4±4.5(P< 0.01);住院时间:内镜组(11.9±7.2) d,开颅组(13.3±8.7) d (P< 0.05);术后6个月mRS评分:内镜组3.2±1.8,开颅组4.1±1.6,内镜组患者预后显著优于开颅组患者(P< 0.01)。 结论 高血压脑出血神经内镜手术技术可行、微创高效,能够改善病人的手术疗效和预后。

     

    Abstract: Objective To compare the effectiveness and prognosis of endoscopic evacuation with traditional craniotomy in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH). Methods A total of 164 consecutive patients with supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage admitted to the department of neurosurgery in our hospital from June 2009 to December 2013 were recruited into this study, and they were divided into endoscopy group (n=89) and craniotomy group (n=75) according to the surgical method. Clinical data about these patients were collected and comparisons of clinical outcome and long-term prognosis between these 2 groups were made. Results There were no significant differences of preoperative data between these two groups (P> 0.05). The evacuation rate of hematoma in endoscopy group (90.3%±5.6%) was significantly higher than that in craniotomy group (82.1%±8.3%) (P< 0.01). The operation time was 1.7±0.8 h for endoscopy group and 5.1±1.6 h for craniotomy group (P< 0.01). The average blood loss during operation was 94.4±99.1 ml for endoscopy group and 610.7±612.7 ml for craniotomy group (P< 0.01). Mean GCS score a week after surgery was 11.6±3.3 for endoscopy group and 8.4±4.5 for craniotomy group (P< 0.01). The average hospitalization time was 11.6±3.3 d for endoscopy group and 8.4±4.5 d for craniotomy group (P< 0.05). The mean Modified Rankin Scales (mRS) of 6-month follow-up was 3.2±1.8 for endoscopy group and 4.1±1.6 for craniotomy group (P< 0.05). Patients in endoscopy group got a better prognosis than patients in craniotomy group. Conclusion Endoscopic evacuation is a technically feasible, minimally invasive and highly efficient technique for the management of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Endoscopic surgery can improve the outcome and prognosis of patients with supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.

     

/

返回文章
返回