【摘要】：目的探討腦內(nèi)不同深靜脈引流方式與中腦周圍蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血(PMSAH)的關(guān)系方法回顧性分析2014年1月至2017年1月安徽醫(yī)科大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院診治的90例蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血(SAH)患者的臨床資料。其中PMSAH 30例為PMSAH組,動脈瘤性SAH 60例為對照組。單側(cè)大腦半球靜脈引流分為A型(正常的連續(xù)):基底靜脈有大腦深中靜脈引流,引流入Galen大腦大靜脈;B型(正常的不連續(xù)):基底靜脈與前方的鉤靜脈、后方的Galen靜脈有不連續(xù)靜脈引流;C型(原始的變異):未向Galen大腦大靜脈引流,中腦周圍靜脈向巖上竇引流,或基底靜脈直接引流入橫竇、直竇。雙側(cè)大腦半球靜脈引流的不同組合分為:正常型引流(Ⅰ型:AA),不連續(xù)型引流(Ⅱ型:AB、BB),原始型引流(Ⅲ型:AC、BC、CC),比較兩組靜脈引流方式的差異。結(jié)果 PMSAH組中,Ⅰ、Ⅱ型引流均占26.7%(各8例),Ⅲ型引流占46.7%(14例)。對照組中Ⅰ型引流占48.3%(29例),Ⅱ型引流占28.3%(17例),Ⅲ型引流占23.3%(14例)。3種靜脈引流方式在兩組中分布比較,差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(χ~2=5.804,P=0.055),但Ⅲ型靜脈引流(46.7%比23.3%)在兩組間差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(χ~2=5.081,P=0.024)。結(jié)論 PMSAH患者的深靜脈引流多表現(xiàn)為基底靜脈引流入硬腦膜靜脈竇,而并非向大腦大靜脈引流。提示原始引流入硬膜竇的方式較引流入大腦大靜脈的方式更容易破裂。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the relationship between different deep venous drainage methods and subarachnoid hemorrhage (PMSAH) around midbrain methods the clinical data of 90 patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) diagnosed and treated in the second affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from January 2014 to January 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 30 cases of PMSAH were PMSAH group and 60 cases of arteriomatous SAH were control group. Unilateral cerebral hemispheric venous drainage can be divided into type A (normal continuous): basal vein has deep middle cerebral vein drainage, leading to Galen great cerebral vein, B type (normal discontinuity): basal vein and anterior hook vein, posterior Galen vein has discontinuity vein drainage; Type C (primitive variation): no drainage to the great cerebral vein of Galen, drainage of the pericerebral vein to the superior petrosal sinus, or direct flow of the basal vein into the transverse sinus and straight sinus. The different combinations of bilateral cerebral hemispheric venous drainage were divided into normal drainage (type 鈪，

本文編號：2517689