慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流术术中冲洗、不冲洗的临床疗效比较

Comparison of the Clinical Effect of Flushing Method and Non-flushing Method in Chronic Subdural Hematoma Drilling Drainage

目的比较慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流术单孔冲洗与不冲洗临床效果。方法 80例慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流术患者,分别采用慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流术术中冲洗和术中不冲洗术治疗,对疗效及术后并发症进行比较。结果 2种手术方式均具有良好的临床效果,术中不冲洗组手术较短(P<0.05),术中冲洗组继发血肿2例,术中不冲洗组无继发血肿发生(P>0.05);术中冲洗组术后颅内感染2例,术中不冲洗组并发感染1例(P>0.05);术后继发癫痫:术中冲洗组3例,不冲洗组1例(P>0.05);术后随访术中冲洗组复发1例,术中不冲洗组复发2例(P>0.05)。结论术中冲洗、不冲洗引流术均具有良好的临床效果,术中不冲洗组具有手术时间短的优点。

Objective To compare the clinical effect between flushing method and non-flushing method in Chronic subdural hematoma drilling drainage.Methods By comparing the curative effect and complications in 80 patients who were treated by flushing method and non-flushing method in chronic subdural hematoma drilling drainage.Results The clinical effects of both methods were sound.With shorter time（P〈0.05）,secondary hematoma case occurred by non-flushing method,while 2 secondary hematoma cases occurred by flushing method （P〉0.05）,there were 2 secondary infection cases in the flushing team,compared with 1 such case in the non-flushing team （P〉0.05）,the flushing team had 3 secondary epilepsy cases,and the non-flushing team had 1 secondary epilepsy case（P〉0.05）.The flushing team had 1 recurrent case,while the non-flushing team had 2 recurrent cases after operation（P〉0.05）.Conclusion Both the flushing and non-flushing methods have good clinical effect,and shorter time is the advantage by non-flushing method.