钻孔引流术治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的临床效果

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (16)
Related Citation (11)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (33 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of drilling and drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma.Methods A total of 80 patients with chronic subdural hematoma in our hospital from February 2017 to February 2018 were selected and divided into control group (40 cases)and experimental group (40 cases)according to random number table method.The control group was used small bone window craniotomy and the experimental group was used drilling drainage.After treatment of 7 d,the NIHSS and GCS scores of the two groups before and after treatment were compared,and the operative time,hematoma clearance rate and incidence of complications were observed in the two groups.Results There was no significant difference in GCS and NIHSS scores between the two groups before and after treatment(P＞0.05）.After treatment,GCS and NIHSS scores were significantly lower than those before treatment(P<0.05）,and the operation time of the experimental group was significantly shorter than that of the control group(P<0.05）;the postoperative hematoma clearance rate in the experimental group was higher than that of the control group(P<0.05）,and the total incidence of complications in the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group,the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05）.Conclusion The effect of drilling and drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma is better.It can obviously improve the score of GCS and NIHSS,shorten the operation time,improve the clearance rate of hematoma,and reduce the incidence of complications.It is worth popularizing.

Key words： Drilling and drainage Subdural hematoma Operation time Hematoma clearance rate Incidence of complications

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	CAI Ye-sheng
	LU Si-fang
	XIE Zhao-tai

Cite this article:

CAI Ye-sheng,LU Si-fang,XIE Zhao-tai. Clinical effect of drilling and drainage for chronic subdural hematoma[J]. 中国当代医药, 2018, 25(28): 73-75.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2018/V25/I28/73

[1]	刘骏辉，陈谦学，张锐，等.微创穿刺术对比传统钻孔引流术治疗慢性硬膜下血肿疗效分析——meta分析[J].国际神经病学神经外科学杂志，2015，42（3）：216-222.
[2]	肖锦.重症颅脑损伤患者的手术治疗临床分析[J].癫癎与神经电生理学杂志，2016，25（6）：349-350.
[3]	胡超.重症颅脑损伤的手术治疗临床分析[J].中外医学研究，2017，15（31）：72-74.
[4]	许慧中，颜庆华，邵柏，等.慢性硬膜下血肿治疗体会（附151 例报告）[J].临床神经外科杂志，2015，12（2）：140-142.
[5]	宗庆华，娄永利.钻孔引流术与神经内窥镜治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的对照研究[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志，2017，20（18）：22-25.
[6]	周德才，王少雄，黄程.经侧裂入路行开颅血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血临床价值探讨[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志，2016，19（1）：32-34.
[7]	李会兵，陈谦学.颅内压监测对重度颅脑外伤行开颅血肿清除术患者GCS评分、并发症及预后的影响[J].实用临床医药杂志，2017，21（11）：73-76.
[8]	张磊，刘建民.美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表[J].中华神经外科杂志，2014，30（1）：79.
[9]	陈刚，程继勇.开颅血肿清除术和钻孔引流术治疗高血压脑出血疗效比较[J].中国神经精神疾病杂志，2016，42（7）：431-434.
[10]	邢鸣，魏民，柴伟，等.慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流术后复发的危险因素分析[J].临床神经外科杂志，2017，14（6）：472-474.
[11]	李泗安，刘增良.微创钻孔引流术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效及术后NSE、NTF-α、CRP的变化[J].中国老年学杂志，2015，35（13）：3597-3598.
[12]	刘连英.38例慢性硬膜下血肿钻孔引流治疗效果的观察[J].中外医学研究，2014，12（3）：125-126.
[13]	武琼.慢性硬膜下血肿发病机制的研究进展[J].医学综述，2013，19（14）：2502-2504.
[14]	杨振时，陈永翱，付为刚.慢性硬膜下血肿手术并发症防治探讨[J].安徽医学，2014，35（6）：813-815.
[15]	张宗杰，祁磊，王轶，等.小骨窗显微手术与钻孔引流治疗临床对比分析[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志，2017，16（4）：360-362.
[16]	方江顺，王贤书，杨志国等.微创颅骨钻孔引流治疗小儿急性硬膜外血肿的临床效果[J].临床小儿外科杂志，2017，16（4）：395-398.