软硬通道治疗高血压脑出血临床比较研究  

The clinically comparative study of soft-channel and hard-channel treatment on hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage

作　　者：李化伟[1] 丁秀文[1] 潘迪飞[1] 

机构地区：[1]山东省莱芜钢铁集团有限公司医院,山东莱芜271104

出　　处：《中国卫生产业》2012年第20期26-27,共2页China Health Industry

摘　　要：目的观察并比较软硬通道治疗高血压脑出血临床效果及安全性。方法选取我院2008年1月~2011年3月收治高血压脑出血患者107例,随机分为两组,其中对照组54例,采用软通道治疗,实验组53例,采用硬通道治疗;比较两组患者临床治疗总有效率,治疗前后血肿量,治疗前后GCS、SSS量表评分以及并发症发生率等。结果实验组患者治疗总有效率明显高于对照组患者,组间比较（P〈0.05）差异有统计学意义;实验组患者治疗后血肿量明显少于对照组,组间比较（P〈0.05）差异有统计学意义;实验组患者治疗后GCS及SSS评分明显优于对照组,组间比较（P〈0.05）差异有统计学意义;同时两组患者并发症发生率组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论硬通道治疗高血压脑出血较软通道治疗临床效果显著,能够有效清除血肿,改善预后,具有临床推广使用价值。Objective To observe and compare the therapeutic effects and security of soft-channel and hard-channel treatment on hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods 107 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage were chose in the period from January 2008 to March 2011 in our hospital and randomly divided into two groups including control group （54 patients） with soft-channel treatment and experimental group （53 patients） with hard-channel treatment; and the total effective rate, the hematoma volume before and after treatment, the GCS and SSS scores before and after treatment, and the incidence of complication of both groups were compared. Results The total effective rate of experimental group were significantly better than control group （P〈0.05）. The hematoma volume after treatment of experimental group were significantly better than control group （P〈0.05）. The GCS and SSS scores after treatment of experimental group were significantly better than control group （P〈0.05）. And there was no significant difference in the incidence of complication between control group and experimental group. Conclusion Compared with soft-channel treatment, the hard-channel treatment on hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage obtain excellent effect, can effective- ly remove the hematoma, improve the prognosis, and is worthy of clinical application.

关 键 词：软通道 硬通道 高血压脑出血 疗效 安全性 

分 类 号：R651.1[医药卫生—外科学]