检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]河北省迁安市中医医院神经外科,迁安064400
出 处:《中国医药导刊》2011年第3期409-410,共2页Chinese Journal of Medicinal Guide
摘 要:目的:比较高血压脑出血颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术与硬通道技术的临床疗效。方法:纳入高血压性脑出血患者96例,随机分为两组,硬通道组(47例)行硬通道微创穿刺技术治疗,软通道组(49例)行软通道微创穿刺技术治疗,对比治疗效果。结果:两组临床效果与3个月日常生活能力无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:这两种方法都可用于高血压性脑出血的微创治疗,治疗效果无显著差异,但各有优缺点。Oblective:To compare the hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage with intracranial hematoma puncture minimally invasive soft- channel technology and the clinical effect of hard-channel technology.Methods:Patients included in hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage,96 cases were randomly divided into two groups,hard-channel group (47 patients) hard tunnel minimally invasive treatment of puncture,the soft- ehannet group (49 patients) in treatment of soft-channel minimally invasive puncture contrast therapy.Results:Two groups of curative effect and 3 months of daily living rate were no statistic significant difference(P〉0.05).Conelusion:The both ways can equally treat hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage,but both has its strongpoint and weakness.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28