期刊文献+

标准大骨瓣减压术与传统骨瓣减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的对比分析 被引量:4

Comparative analysis of the standard large trauma craniotomy decompression and the traditional craniotomy decom-pression for the treatment of severe craniocerebral trauma
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的对比分析标准大骨瓣减压术与传统骨瓣减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的并发症及疗效。方法将102例重型颅脑损伤患者分为两组,治疗组52例采用标准大骨瓣减压术治疗;对照组50例采用传统骨瓣减压术治疗。通过对术后并发症及术后12个月的GOS评分的分析比较,来评估两种手术方法的治疗效果。结果治疗组的恢复良好率为57.6%、死亡率为11.53%;对照组的恢复良好率为18%、死亡率为38%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在并发症方面,治疗组的脑膨出发生率为5.67%,外伤性脑梗死发生率为3.84%;对照组的发生率分别为22%和16%,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗组的迟发性颅内血肿、癫痫、颅内感染、脑积水的发生率与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论标准大骨瓣减压术具有手术视野相对开阔、减压范围广泛、副损伤小、扩大颅腔容积更为有效等优点,可以改善预后,降低死亡率。 Objective To analyze the complication and curative effect of severe craniocerebral trauma respectively treated by standard large trauma craniotomy and traditional decompression. Methods 102 patients with severe craniocerebral trauma were divided into two groups, 52 cases in the treatment group adopted the standard large trauma craniotomy treatment, 50 cases in the control group adopted the traditional craniotomy decompression therapy. Evaluated the effect of two surgical methods by postoperative complications and GOS score analysis at 12 months postoperatively. Results The good recovery rate of treatment group was 57.6%, mortality was 11.53%. Good recovery rate of control group was 18%, mortality was 38%. There were significant differences between the two groups(P〈0.05). In terms of complications, the incidence of encephalocele in treat-ment group was 5.67%, incidence of traumatic cerebral infarction was 3.84%, the incidence of encephaloocele and traumatic cerebral infarction in control group was 22% and 16% respectively, the difference was statistically significant (P〈0.05). There were no significant differences in the late-onset intracranial hematoma, epilepsy, intracranial infection, the incidence of hydro-cephalus between the two group (P〉0.05). Conclusion Standard large trauma craniotomy decompression has relatively open field, decompression range, light deputy injury, can effectively expand the cranial cavity volume, it can improve the prognosis and reduce mortality.
作者 章炜 王冠
出处 《中国现代医药杂志》 2014年第10期32-34,共3页 Modern Medicine Journal of China
关键词 重型颅脑损伤 标准大骨瓣减压术 传统骨瓣减压术 疗效 Severe craniocerebral trauma Standard large trauma craniotomy Traditional decompression Curative ef-fect
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

  • 1Patel HC,Bouamra O,Woodford M,et al.Trends in head injury outcome from 1989 to 2003 and the effect of neurosurgical care: an observational study. Lancet, 2005,366 : 1538-1544.
  • 2刘艺春,马建华,余坚,方涛,蒋峰.标准大骨瓣减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤疗效观察[J].实用临床医药杂志,2008,12(8):89-90. 被引量:18
  • 3Cooper DJ,Rosenfeld JV,MurrayL,et al.Decompressive Craniec- tomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury.New Engl J Med,2011, 364 : 1493-1502.
  • 4江基尧.介绍一种美国临床常用的标准外伤大骨瓣开颅术[J].中华神经外科杂志,2009,14(6):381.
  • 5Chesnut RM ,Ghajar I,Mass Al,et al. Early indicators of progno- sis in severe traumatic brain injury[J]. J Neurotrauma,2000,17 (6- 7) :557-565.
  • 6Jiang JY,Gao GY,Li WP,et al. Early indicators of prognosis in 846 cases of severe traumatic brain injury[J]. J Neurotrauma, 2002,19(7) :869-874.
  • 7Agrawal A,Timothy J, Pandit L,et al. Post-traumatic epilepsy : An overview. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery,2006,108 (5): 433-439.

二级参考文献4

  • 1段国升,朱诚.手术学全集外科卷[M].第1版,北京:人民军医出版社,1994:88.
  • 2江基尧.介绍一种国外临床常用的标准外伤大骨瓣开颅术.中华神经外科杂志,1998,14(7):381-381.
  • 3丁育基.颅脑重症与手术并发症的临床处理[M].北京:北京出版社,2001:81-95.
  • 4王忠诚,赵元立.加强颅脑外伤临床基础研究提倡规范化治疗[J].中华神经外科杂志,2001,17(3):133-134. 被引量:246

共引文献17

同被引文献27

引证文献4

二级引证文献11

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部