锥颅钻孔血肿抽吸外引流术(锥颅术)和开颅血肿清除术(开颅术)治疗脑出血的效果  

Therapeutic Effects of Cerebral Hemorrhage with Aspiration of Cranial Drilled Hematoma and External Drainage(Conus Cranial Surgery) and Craniotomy(Craniotomy)

作　　者：李志明 LI Zhi-ming(Department of General Surgery,Section Two,Juxian Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital,Juxian,Shandong Province,276500 China)

机构地区：[1]山东省莒县中医医院外二科,山东莒县276500

出　　处：《系统医学》2018年第9期118-120,共3页Systems Medicine

摘　　要：目的分析锥颅术和开颅术治疗脑出血的临床效果。方法数字随机抽取该院2017年1月—2018年1月行锥颅术治疗的脑出血患者32例,将其作为锥颅组;选择同期接收并行开颅术治疗的另32例脑出血患者作为开颅组,对比两组治疗疗效。结果锥颅组平均手术时间(49.63±2.36)min、术中出血量(59.63±1.25)m L、平均住院天数(10.36±1.25)d、ADL评分(39.63±2.51)分、21 d NIHSS评分(7.63±1.02)分、与开颅组对比,差异有统计学意义(t=-23.970 8、-12.777 8、-15.840 5、15.526 4、-30.714 9,P=0.037 5、0.012 0、0.031 7、0.024 5、0.028 5);且锥颅组恢复良好率、并发症发生率12.50%明显高于开颅组(χ~2=4.266 7、P=0.038 8)。结论相较于开颅术治疗脑出血,行锥颅术治疗的疗效更为显著,可推广。Objective This paper tries to analyze the clinical effects of cranial surgery and eraniotomy for cerebral hemorrhage. Methods 32 patients with intraeerebral hemorrhage who were treated with cone cranial surgery between January 2017 and January 2018 in this hospital were randomly selected as the conical cranial group; 32 patients with intraeerebral hemorrhage treated with concurrent eraniotomy were selected as open cranial group, the curative effect of the two groups was compared. Results The mean operative time （49.63±2.36） rain, intraoperative blood loss （59.63±1.25） mL, average length of hospital stay （10.36±1.25）d, ADL score （39.63±2.51） points, and 21-day NIHSS score （7.63±1.02） points, compared with the eraniotomy group （t=-23.970 8, -12.777 8, -15.840 5, 15.526 4, -30.714 9, P= 0.037 5, 0.012 0, 0.031 7, 0.024 5, 0.028 5）; The incidence of complications was 12.50% higher than that of the eran- iotomy group（x2=4.266 7,P=0.038 8,P〈0.05）. Conclusion Compared with eraniotomy for cerebral hemorrhage, the cura- tive effect of eraniotomy is more significant and can be promoted.

关 键 词：锥颅钻孔血肿抽吸外引流术 开颅血肿清除术 脑出血 

分 类 号：R651.12[医药卫生—外科学]