内镜经鼻视神经管减压和经颅减压术的对比研究  

Clinical comparative study of optic canal decompression by endoscopic transnasal and transcranial approaches

作　　者：周跃飞[1] 冯枫[2] 侯红武[1] 刘卫平[1] 贺晓生[1] 高大宽[1] 

机构地区：[1]第四军医大学西京医院神经外科,西安710032 [2]第四军医大学西京医院康复理疗科,西安710032

出　　处：《中国微侵袭神经外科杂志》2013年第8期364-366,共3页Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery

摘　　要：目的比较分析经鼻蝶和经颅入路行视神经管减压术的临床疗效和手术优势。方法回顾性分析我科收治的视神经损伤病人28例(29眼)。神经内镜经鼻入路减压12例(13眼),经颅显微镜下视神经管减压术16例(16眼)。结果经颅组有效7例,无效9例,并发症3例;内镜组有效7例,无效5例,无并发症的发生。结论内镜下经鼻入路视神经管减压术临床效果优于经颅减压,创伤小,并发症少,临床应用前景好。Objective To comparative analysis the clinical efficacy and surgical advantages of decompression of optic canal via endoscopic transnasal and transcranial approaches.Methods The clinical data of 28 patients（29 eyes） with optic nerve damage were analyzed retrospectively.The optic canals were decompressed via endoscopic transnasal approach in 12 patients（13 eyes） and via transcranial approach in 16 patients（16 eyes）.Results The decompression of optic canal was effective in 7 patients and not effective in 9,with 3 cases of complication,in transcranial approach group.The decompression was effective in 7 patients and not effective in 5, without occurrence of complication in endoscopic transnasal approach group.Conclusions The efficacy of optic canal decompression is better via endoscopic transnasal approach than via transcranial approach.The former has several advantages over the latter,namely a smaller wound and less complications,with a better clinical application prospect.

关 键 词：视神经损伤 视神经管减压 神经内镜 

分 类 号：R779.6[医药卫生—眼科]