损害控制综合康复救治平时和突发暴力事件时严重颅脑损伤的比较研究

Comparative Study of Damage Control Comprehensive Rehabilitation Treatment in Peacetime and Emergencies of Violence for Severe Brain Injury

目的探讨损害控制综合康复在平时和突发暴力事件时救治严重颅脑损伤的作用。方法回顾性对比研究损害控制技术救治平时严重颅脑损伤36例和突发暴力事件严重颅脑损伤34例,评估两组伤员的伤情特征、损害控制救治方法及预后结局情况。结果两组伤员GCS评分比较,13～15分平时组12例、事件组2例;9～12分平时组19例、事件组21例;≤8分平时组5例、事件组11例;两组伤员GCS评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组伤员预后Glasgow结局量表比较,死亡平时组4例、事件组8例;植物状态平时组1例、事件组2例;严重残疾平时组4例、事件组5例;中度残疾平时组9例、事件组12例;恢复良好平时组18例、事件组7例;两组预后结局比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。损害控制综合康复技术在平时组和事件组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论损害控制综合康复技术救治严重颅脑损伤的方法 ,值得临床推广。

Objective To investigate the effect of damage control comprehensive rehabilitation on severe traumatic brain injury in peacetime and in the event of unexpected violence. Methods The retrospective study was conducted to compare damage control technique in treating 36 patients with severe brain injury in peacetime and 34 patients with severe brain injury the event of sudden violence, in order to assess the characteristics, damage control treatments and prognoses of the patients＇ damage conditions in the two groups, Results To compare between peacetime group and event group, the number of patients with 13 to 15 Glasgow coma scores （GCS） was 12 vs. 2; the number of patients with 9 to 12 GCS was 19 vs. 21 ; and the number of patients with GCS ≤8 was 5 vs. 11. The differences in GCS between the two groups were statistically significant （P 〈 0. 05 ）. The number of death cases was 4 vs. 8 ; the number of vegetative state was 1 vs. 2 ; the number of severe disability was 4 vs. 5 ; the number of moderate disability was 9 vs. 12 ; the number of good recovery was 18 vs. 7. The differences in prognosis between the two groups were statistically significant （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. No significant difference was found between the two groups in damage control comprehensive rehabilitation treatment （P 〉 0. 05 ） . Conclusion Damage eontrol comprehensive rehabilitation treatment for severe head injury is worthy of popularization.