锥颅与钻孔置管冲洗引流术治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的疗效对比  

The effect comparison between skull rinse and drilling drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma

作　　者：别小华[1] 冯清亮 薛俊刚[1] 袁武军[1] 常树林[1] 曹磊[1] 

机构地区：[1]西安交通大学附属红会医院功能神经外科,陕西西安710054

出　　处：《蚌埠医学院学报》2015年第12期1651-1654,共4页Journal of Bengbu Medical College

摘　　要：目的:探讨局麻下床旁锥颅置管冲洗引流术治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的可行性。方法:对216例非随机慢性硬膜下血肿患者行手术治疗,其中123例在局麻下行床旁锥颅置管冲洗引流术(锥颅引流术组),93例行传统钻孔冲洗引流术(钻孔引流术组),对比2种手术方法的治疗效果、血肿复发情况、住院时间、住院费用以及并发症的发生情况。结果:锥颅引流术组的治疗效果和血肿复发情况与钻孔引流术组均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但锥颅引流术组的住院时间以及住院费用均明显低于钻孔引流术组(P<0.01)。结论:局麻下床旁锥颅置管冲洗引流术治疗慢性硬膜下血肿是一种安全、可靠、经济的值得推广的手术方法。Objective： To explore the feasibility of bedside skull rinse under local anesthesia drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma（CSDH）. Methods： Among 216 CSDH patients, 123 cases were treated with bedside skull rinse under local anesthesia drainage （ skull rinse group）, and 93 cases were treated with traditional drilling drainage （ drilling drainage group）. The curative effects, hematoma recurrence, length of hospital stay, hospitalization cost and complications between two groups were compared. Results：The differences of curative effects and hematoma recurrence between two groups were not statistically significant（ P 〉 0.05 ）. The length of hospital stay and hospitalization cost in skull rinse group were significantly less than those in drilling drainage group（ P 〉 0.01 ）. Conclusions：The bedside skull rinse under local anesthesia drainage treating CSDH is safe, reliable and economic, which is worthy of further promotion.

关 键 词：慢性硬膜下血肿 引流术 冲洗 

分 类 号：R651.1[医药卫生—外科学]