论文部分内容阅读
目的比较钻孔引流尿激酶溶解术和小骨窗开颅术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效。方法 2008年9月-2009年12月分别接受钻孔引流尿激酶溶解术(A组,n=34)和小骨窗开颅术(B组,n=30)的高血压脑出血患者共64例(出血量30～50mL,无脑疝),两组患者术前基线指标(如出血量、手术时机、昏迷程度等)比较无统计学意义。比较接受不同术式的两组患者手术时间、术后1个月的近期疗效、术后6个月远期疗效及死亡率。结果 A组手术时间短于B组,两组比较,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1、6个月,A组疗效优于B组,两组比较,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A、B组术后近期和远期死亡率比较,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对出血部位在基底节区、出血量在30～50mL,无脑疝的高血压脑出血患者,钻孔引流尿激酶溶解术的疗效明显优于小骨窗开颅术。
Objective To compare the efficacy of drilling drainage urokinase and small bone window craniotomy in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods A total of 64 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage undergoing drilling drainage urokinase (group A, n = 34) and small craniotomy (group B, n = 30) from September 2008 to December 2009 were enrolled in this study. (Bleeding 30 ~ 50mL, no hernia), two groups of patients before baseline index (such as the amount of bleeding, timing of surgery, coma, etc.) were not statistically significant. The operative time, the short-term efficacy at 1 month after surgery and the long-term efficacy and mortality at 6 months after surgery were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time of group A was shorter than that of group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). After 1 month and 6 months, the efficacy of group A was better than that of group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in short-term and long-term mortality between group A and group B (P> 0.05). Conclusions For patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage who have hemorrhage in the basal ganglia with a blood loss of 30 to 50 mL and without hernia, the efficacy of drilling drainage urokinase is significantly better than that of craniotomy.