高血压脑出血颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术与硬通道技术的效果比较

Comparison of the clinical application of soft channel technique and hard channel technique of minimally invasive puncture in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage

目的比较高血压脑出血颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术与硬通道技术的效果。方法选择本院收治的84例高血压脑出血患者并随机分为对照组和观察组,各42例。两组患者均符合颅内血肿微创穿刺治疗指征,观察组采用颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术治疗,对照组采用颅内血肿微创穿刺硬通道技术治疗,比较两组的治疗效果。结果术后1、3、5、7 d,观察组患者颅内血肿量均显著少于对照组,差异显著(P<0.05)。两组的再出血率无统计学差异(P>0.05)。术后3个月,观察组患者重度功能障碍占比明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论高血压脑出血采用颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术治疗效果优于硬通道技术。

Objective To compare the clinical application effect of soft channel technique and hard channel technique ofintracranial hematoma minimally invasive puncture in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods A total of 84patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage admitted in our hospital were randomly divided into control group andobservation group, with 42 cases in each group. Both groups were conformed to the indications of minimally invasivepuncture for intracranial hematoma, the observation group was treated with soft channel technique of minimally invasivepuncture, and the control group was given hard channel technique of minimally invasive puncture. The therapeutic effectsof the two groups were compared. Results Postoperative 1, 3,5 and7 d, the amounts of intracranial hematoma in theobservation group were significantly less than those of the control group, the differences were statistically significant（P〈0.05）.There was no significant difference in rebleeding rate between the two groups （P〉0.05）. At 3 months after operation, theseven dysfunction rate of the observation group was lower than that of the control group（P〈0.05）. Conclusion The effect ofintracranial hematoma minimally invasive soft channel technique treatment in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage isbetter than the hard channel technique.