中等量高血壓腦出血微創(chuàng)與藥物治療療效的比較
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-18 13:54
【摘要】：目的:通過(guò)對(duì)中等量高血壓腦出血患者的治療方法以及手術(shù)時(shí)期的效果進(jìn)行分析研究,確定中等量腦出血患者的治療方法,以及治療時(shí)期。方法:回顧性選取我院2012年至2015年收治的324例中等量高血壓腦出血患者,作為研究對(duì)象。男198例,女126例。年齡在45歲至65歲之間,平均年齡(56±3.8),將參加研究的所有患者平均分為2組,微創(chuàng)治療組和藥物治療組。微創(chuàng)組給予軟通道微創(chuàng)血腫清除術(shù)治療,藥物組給予保守療法進(jìn)行常規(guī)治療。在治療前及治療后1周,2周,4周分別對(duì)兩組患者進(jìn)行GCS昏迷指數(shù)評(píng)分和NIHSS神經(jīng)功能評(píng)分并且進(jìn)行分析。術(shù)后第4周對(duì)兩組患者按照日常生活能力分級(jí)法(activitiesdaily living,ADL)進(jìn)行評(píng)分,對(duì)比兩組患者治療后的并發(fā)癥情況進(jìn)行總結(jié)�？偨Y(jié)微創(chuàng)組患者不同手術(shù)時(shí)機(jī)進(jìn)行手術(shù)后,患者的恢復(fù)狀況以及并發(fā)癥情況�？偨Y(jié)兩組患者的平均住院費(fèi)用和住院時(shí)間,并且進(jìn)行對(duì)比。結(jié)果:(1)治療后1周,兩組患者的GCS平均評(píng)分無(wú)顯著性差異(P0.05),但是治療2周后兩組患者的GCS評(píng)分具有顯著性差異(P0.05)。(2)兩組患者在治療1周后NIHSS神經(jīng)功能評(píng)分存在顯著性差異(P0.05)。且隨著治療后恢復(fù)的時(shí)間增加,兩組患者的神經(jīng)功能評(píng)分的統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異越大。(3)主要并發(fā)癥有消化道出血、肺部感染、顱內(nèi)感染、腎衰竭、心臟衰竭以及治療后顱內(nèi)再次出血,微創(chuàng)組并發(fā)癥總發(fā)生率為25.93%,保守組并發(fā)癥總發(fā)生率為22.22%。經(jīng)過(guò)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)分析后發(fā)現(xiàn),顱內(nèi)感染發(fā)生率微創(chuàng)組明顯高于保守組,具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(p0.05),但兩組患者總的并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率不存在顯著性差異(P0.05)。(4)兩組患者的恢復(fù)情況存在顯著性差異(p0.05)。即微創(chuàng)組患者的恢復(fù)情況明顯優(yōu)于保守組,死亡率明顯低于保守組。(5)其中超早期與早期進(jìn)行微創(chuàng)血腫清除術(shù)治療,患者恢復(fù)率不存在顯著性差異(P0.05),而超早期與延期,早期與延期治療,患者的恢復(fù)情況年均存在顯著性差異(P0.05)。(6)超早期、早期以及延期治療并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率均不存在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.05)。(7)兩組患者的總花費(fèi),藥費(fèi)以及住院時(shí)間均存在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(p0.05),但是兩組患者的治療費(fèi)不存在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.05)。結(jié)論:微創(chuàng)治療的GCS評(píng)分明顯優(yōu)于保守治療。治療4周后的神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)評(píng)分也明顯優(yōu)于保守治療。微創(chuàng)治療的患者康復(fù)程度也優(yōu)于保守治療的患者。而且從經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度來(lái)分析,微創(chuàng)治療也明顯強(qiáng)于保守治療,兩者總并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率相當(dāng)。因此對(duì)于中等量高血壓腦出血患者應(yīng)該選擇微創(chuàng)血腫清除術(shù)進(jìn)行治療。
[Abstract]:Objective: to determine the treatment method and treatment period of moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage by analyzing the treatment method and the effect during the operation period of patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods: 324 patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage from 2012 to 2015 were selected retrospectively. There were 198 males and 126 females. The average age was (56 鹵3.8). All the patients in the study were divided into two groups: the minimally invasive treatment group and the drug treatment group. The minimally invasive group was treated with soft channel minimally invasive hematoma removal and the drug group with conservative therapy. GCS coma index and NIHSS neurological function were evaluated before treatment and 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after treatment. Four weeks after operation, the patients in the two groups were graded according to the activity of Daily living (activitiesdaily living,ADL) method, and the complications after treatment were compared between the two groups. To summarize the recovery and complications of patients in minimally invasive group. The average cost and duration of hospitalization were summarized and compared between the two groups. Results: (1) there was no significant difference in GCS scores between the two groups at 1 week after treatment (P0.05). However, the GCS scores of the two groups were significantly different after 2 weeks of treatment (P0.05). (2). There was a significant difference in the NIHSS neurological function score between the two groups after 1 week of treatment (P0.05). With the increase of recovery time after treatment, the statistical difference of neurological function score between the two groups was greater. (3) the main complications were gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pulmonary infection, intracranial infection, renal failure. The total incidence of complications was 25.93 in the minimally invasive group and 22.222 in the conservative group. The incidence of intracranial infection in the minimally invasive group was significantly higher than that in the conservative group (p0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P0.05). (4). There was a significant difference in the recovery between the two groups (p0.05). That is, the recovery of the patients in the minimally invasive group was significantly better than that in the conservative group, and the mortality was significantly lower than that in the conservative group. (5) there was no significant difference in the recovery rate between the super early stage and the early stage of minimally invasive hematoma clearance (P0.05). However, there were significant differences in the average annual recovery between the patients with ultra-early and delayed treatment and treatment (P0.05). (6). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the early and delayed treatment groups (P0.05). (7). The total cost, drug cost and hospitalization time of the two groups were significantly different (p0.05), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P0.05). Conclusion: the GCS score of minimally invasive therapy is better than that of conservative treatment. The nervous system score after 4 weeks of treatment was also significantly better than that of conservative treatment. The degree of rehabilitation of minimally invasive treatment was also superior to that of conservative treatment. From an economic point of view, minimally invasive treatment is also significantly stronger than conservative treatment, the total incidence of complications is the same. Therefore, minimally invasive hematoma clearance should be selected for patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R651.12
本文編號(hào)：2340212
[Abstract]:Objective: to determine the treatment method and treatment period of moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage by analyzing the treatment method and the effect during the operation period of patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods: 324 patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage from 2012 to 2015 were selected retrospectively. There were 198 males and 126 females. The average age was (56 鹵3.8). All the patients in the study were divided into two groups: the minimally invasive treatment group and the drug treatment group. The minimally invasive group was treated with soft channel minimally invasive hematoma removal and the drug group with conservative therapy. GCS coma index and NIHSS neurological function were evaluated before treatment and 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after treatment. Four weeks after operation, the patients in the two groups were graded according to the activity of Daily living (activitiesdaily living,ADL) method, and the complications after treatment were compared between the two groups. To summarize the recovery and complications of patients in minimally invasive group. The average cost and duration of hospitalization were summarized and compared between the two groups. Results: (1) there was no significant difference in GCS scores between the two groups at 1 week after treatment (P0.05). However, the GCS scores of the two groups were significantly different after 2 weeks of treatment (P0.05). (2). There was a significant difference in the NIHSS neurological function score between the two groups after 1 week of treatment (P0.05). With the increase of recovery time after treatment, the statistical difference of neurological function score between the two groups was greater. (3) the main complications were gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pulmonary infection, intracranial infection, renal failure. The total incidence of complications was 25.93 in the minimally invasive group and 22.222 in the conservative group. The incidence of intracranial infection in the minimally invasive group was significantly higher than that in the conservative group (p0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P0.05). (4). There was a significant difference in the recovery between the two groups (p0.05). That is, the recovery of the patients in the minimally invasive group was significantly better than that in the conservative group, and the mortality was significantly lower than that in the conservative group. (5) there was no significant difference in the recovery rate between the super early stage and the early stage of minimally invasive hematoma clearance (P0.05). However, there were significant differences in the average annual recovery between the patients with ultra-early and delayed treatment and treatment (P0.05). (6). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the early and delayed treatment groups (P0.05). (7). The total cost, drug cost and hospitalization time of the two groups were significantly different (p0.05), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P0.05). Conclusion: the GCS score of minimally invasive therapy is better than that of conservative treatment. The nervous system score after 4 weeks of treatment was also significantly better than that of conservative treatment. The degree of rehabilitation of minimally invasive treatment was also superior to that of conservative treatment. From an economic point of view, minimally invasive treatment is also significantly stronger than conservative treatment, the total incidence of complications is the same. Therefore, minimally invasive hematoma clearance should be selected for patients with moderate hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R651.12
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 張睿;劉展會(huì);黃艷麗;高毅;;高血壓腦出血手術(shù)治療與保守治療適應(yīng)癥的療效及預(yù)后研究[J];河北醫(yī)學(xué);2014年12期
2 周偉東;徐增良;姜寧;紀(jì)芳;劉曉紅;;微創(chuàng)手術(shù)治療腦出血的療效[J];中國(guó)實(shí)用醫(yī)刊;2014年18期
3 潘玨恒;鄭穎鋒;韋璽;;高血壓腦出血微創(chuàng)術(shù)后再出血的臨床多因素分析[J];中國(guó)基層醫(yī)藥;2014年12期
4 冉寶興;房體靜;孫艷紅;王雪冬;李秀珍;;微創(chuàng)手術(shù)和完全保守治療高血壓腦出血的臨床效果比較[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)報(bào);2013年33期
5 余永程;楊華榮;鄭江環(huán);寧麗潔;伍國(guó)鋒;;微創(chuàng)治療與藥物治療高血壓腦出血的臨床分析[J];重慶醫(yī)學(xué);2013年29期
6 李育平;張恒柱;杜任飛;;神經(jīng)內(nèi)鏡對(duì)比傳統(tǒng)腦室外引流治療腦室出血的Meta分析[J];中國(guó)神經(jīng)精神疾病雜志;2013年03期
7 黃國(guó)洲;;微創(chuàng)治療高血壓性腦出血臨床分析[J];河北醫(yī)學(xué);2013年02期
8 李云翔;費(fèi)舟;;雙針微創(chuàng)錐顱治療高血壓腦出血:18例報(bào)告[J];中華神經(jīng)外科疾病研究雜志;2012年05期
9 齊洪武;趙曉光;穆勝利;;高壓氧輔助保守治療基底節(jié)區(qū)高血壓腦出血[J];臨床誤診誤治;2012年06期
10 趙崇偉;;基層醫(yī)院自發(fā)腦出血微創(chuàng)治療的臨床分析[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥指南;2012年13期
，本文編號(hào)：2340212
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/waikelunwen/2340212.html
最近更新
教材專著
