Objective: to analyze the clinical therapeutic effect and safety of small bone window craniotomy for hematoma removal in patients with cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: a total of 90 patients with cerebral hemorrhage from...Objective: to analyze the clinical therapeutic effect and safety of small bone window craniotomy for hematoma removal in patients with cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: a total of 90 patients with cerebral hemorrhage from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected in this study and randomly divided into two groups for comparison. The hemorrhage sites of both groups were basal ganglia and cerebral lobes, and the hemorrhage volume was 32-55ml. One group was treated with small bone window craniotomy for hematoma removal, and the other group was treated with traditional craniotomy for hematoma removal and decompressive craniectomy. There were 45 patients in each group. The clinical curative effect was observed and recorded. Results: when observing the therapeutic effect of the two groups of patients, it could be found that 76.1% of the control group was lower than 97.7% of the experimental group (p < 0.05). The operation time and hospitalization time of the control group were higher than those of the experimental group, and the difference between the groups was significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: in the treatment of patients with cerebral hemorrhage, small bone window craniotomy is more effective and safer than the traditional method.展开更多
文摘Objective: to analyze the clinical therapeutic effect and safety of small bone window craniotomy for hematoma removal in patients with cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: a total of 90 patients with cerebral hemorrhage from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected in this study and randomly divided into two groups for comparison. The hemorrhage sites of both groups were basal ganglia and cerebral lobes, and the hemorrhage volume was 32-55ml. One group was treated with small bone window craniotomy for hematoma removal, and the other group was treated with traditional craniotomy for hematoma removal and decompressive craniectomy. There were 45 patients in each group. The clinical curative effect was observed and recorded. Results: when observing the therapeutic effect of the two groups of patients, it could be found that 76.1% of the control group was lower than 97.7% of the experimental group (p < 0.05). The operation time and hospitalization time of the control group were higher than those of the experimental group, and the difference between the groups was significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: in the treatment of patients with cerebral hemorrhage, small bone window craniotomy is more effective and safer than the traditional method.
文摘目的比较神经内镜微创术与小骨窗开颅术治疗血肿量≤50 mL的幕上脑出血的疗效。方法回顾性选取2022年6月至2024年8月邢台市中心医院收治的136例幕上脑出血患者(血肿量≤50 mL),根据手术方式分为神经内镜组(神经内镜微创血肿清除术,n=75)和开颅组(小骨窗开颅血肿清除术,n=61)。对比两组患者的手术相关指标、治疗效果[采用格拉斯哥预后量表(Glasgow outcome scale,GOS)]、神经功能[采用临床神经功能缺失程度量表(neurological function deficit scale,NFDS)]、生活质量[采用日常生活能力量表(activities of daily living,ADL)和生存质量简表(WHO quality of life-BREF,WHOQOL-BREF)]及术后并发症发生率。结果与开颅组比较,神经内镜组患者手术时间、置管时间及住院时间更短,血肿清除率更高(P<0.05)。神经内镜组治疗有效率为84.00%(63/75),显著高于开颅组的65.57%(40/61)(P<0.05)。两组术前及术后1个月、术后3个月NFDS评分比较,时间效应、组别效应、时间和组别交互效应,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001);术后1、3个月,两组患者NFDS评分均较术前降低,且神经内镜组NFDS评分低于开颅组(P<0.05)。两组术前及术后3个月ADL、WHOQOL-BREF评分比较,时间效应、组别效应、时间和组别交互效应,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001);术后3个月,两组患者ADL与WHOQOL-BREF评分均较术前升高,且神经内镜组评分高于开颅组(P<0.05)。神经内镜组并发症总发生率(8.00%)低于开颅组(27.87%)(χ^(2)=9.451,P=0.002)。结论对于血肿量≤50 mL的幕上脑出血,神经内镜微创术相较于小骨窗开颅术疗效确切,其手术快捷、并发症少、术后恢复快,能更有效地改善患者神经功能,进一步提升其生活质量。
