摘要
目的:研究两种颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)式治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析我院174例接受颈动脉内膜剥脱结合补片成形术(PCEA)以及翻转式颈动脉内膜剥脱术(ECEA)的颈动脉狭窄患者,行PCEA术的患者分为对照组,ECEA为观察组,对比两组临床疗效。结果:根据研究结果显示,观察组的术中出血量(44.35±16.57)m L、手术时间(87.99±19.65)min、住院时间(15.87±4.59)d均明显少于对照组术中出血量(61.59±30.54)m L、手术时间(118.45±24.56)min、住院时间(16.86±5.49)d,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而并发症以及术后再狭窄差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:ECEA和PCEA两种术式均能够起到较好的疗效,两者相比ECEA具有更多的优势,但是在实际临床治疗中,必须结合患者的颈动脉情况以及执刀医师的技术水平择优选择。
Objective： To study two kinds of carotid endarterectomy（ CEA） type therapeutic effect in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Method： A retrospective analysis of 174 patients underwent carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in the hospital（ PCEA） and intimal eversion carotid endarterectomy（ ECEA） in the patients with carotid artery stenosis,for patients undergoing PCEA were divided into control group,ECEA as the observation group,and then compared clinical curative effect of two groups. Result：The results of the study showed that the bleeding volume in observation group was（ 44.35 ± 16.57） m L,operation time was（ 87.99 ± 19.65） min,hospitalization was（ 15.87 ± 4.59） days,which were significantly less than the control group,the hospitalization time was（ 16.86 ± 5.49） days,there was significant difference between two groups（ P 0.05）,but no significant difference in postoperative complications and restenosis（ P 0.05）. Conclusion： ECEA and PCEA two kinds of operation can play a better effect,comparing with the ECEA has more advantages,but in the actual clinical treatment,level of technology must be combined with carotid artery patients and physicians to select the knife.
出处
《河北医学》
CAS
2015年第4期555-557,共3页
Hebei Medicine
基金
2012年湖南省科技攻关计划资助项目
(编号:2012AA302C83)
关键词
劲动脉内膜剥脱术
颈动脉狭窄
疗效
Carotid endarterectomy
Carotid artery stenosis
Curative effect
