临床外科杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 377-380.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2024.04.014

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

神经内镜下经额锁孔入路治疗中等量基底节区高血压性脑出血的临床效果观察

张建平 吴日乐 包金岗   

  1. 010017 呼和浩特,内蒙古自治区人民医院急诊脑血管科
  • 收稿日期:2023-05-11 出版日期:2024-05-10 发布日期:2024-05-10
  • 通讯作者: 张建平,Email:zjp110225@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    内蒙古自治区自然科学基金项目(2021MS08108);内蒙古自治区科技计划项目(2021GG0114)

Clinical efficacy of endoscopic transfrontal keyhole approach in the treatment of moderate to equal amounts of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage in the basal ganglia region

ZHANG Jianping,WU Rile,BAO Jingang.   

  1. Department of Emergency Cerebrovascular,Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region People’s Hospital,Hohhot,Inner Mongolia 010017,China
  • Received:2023-05-11 Online:2024-05-10 Published:2024-05-10

摘要: 目的 分析神经内镜下经额锁孔入路治疗中等量基底节区高血压性脑出血(HICH)的临床效果。方法 2018年1月~2023年2月收治的中等量基底节区HICH病人92例,最终符合纳入标准者90例,随机数字表法分为两组,对照组44例,采用显微镜下经颞部入路治疗,内镜治疗组46例,采用神经内镜下经额锁孔入路治疗。对比两组手术相关指标(术中出血量、手术时间、住院时间以及血肿清除率)、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)、中国卒中量表(CSS)、日常生活能力评分(ADL)、60天短期预后以及并发症。结果 内镜治疗组术中出血量为(63.16±13.59)ml、手术时间为(84.59±13.22)分钟、血肿清除率为(96.87±1.60)%,对照组分别为(89.26±13.65)ml、(113.26±23.60)分钟、(94.71±1.34)%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后两组NIHSS、CSS评分降低,ADL评分升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后内镜治疗组NIHSS为(18.71±2.31)分、CSS(10.19±2.46)分、ADL(63.58±6.66)分,对照组分别为(23.16±2.15)分、(15.21±2.31)分和(59.97±6.94)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);内镜治疗组预后优良率为91.30%,高于对照组的68.18%(P<0.05);内镜治疗组并发症发生率为6.52%、对照组为11.36%,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 神经内镜下经额锁孔入路治疗中等量基底节区HICH临床疗效显著,有利于病人神经功能恢复,安全性尚可。

关键词: 神经内镜; 经额锁孔入路; 中等量; 基底节; 高血压性脑出血

Abstract: Objective To analyze the clinical effect of neuroendoscopic transfrontal keyhole approach in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) in the basal ganglia.Methods 92 patients with moderate basal ganglia HICH admitted to our hospital from January 2018 to February 2023 were prospectively selected,including 90 patients who met the inclusion criteria,and 44 patients in the control group (microscopically treated via temporal approach) and 46 patients in the endoscopic group (neuroendoscopically treated via frontal keyhole approach) were randomly divided by digital table method.The parameters related to surgery (intraoperative blood loss,operation time,hospital stay and hematoma clearance rate),National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS),Chinese Stroke Scale (CSS),daily living ability score (ADL),short-term prognosis at 60 days and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups.Results In the endoscopic treatment group,the intraoperative blood loss was (63.16±13.59) ml,the operative time was (84.59±13.22) min,and the clearance rate of hematoma was (96.87±1.60) %,in the control group,the amount of blood loss during operation was (89.26±13.65) ml,the operation time was (113.26±23.60) min,and the clearance rate of hematoma was (94.71±1.34) %,the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (P< 0.05),and the length of hospitalization was not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05); after treatment,the scores of NIHSS and CSS were decreased,and the scores of ADL were increased (P<0.05),while the scores of NIHSS,CSS and ADL were (18.71±2.31),(10.19±2.46) and (63.58±6.66) in the endoscopic treatment group after treatment,while in the control group,the NIHSS was (23.16±2.15),CSS (15.21±2.31) and ADL (59.97±6.94),and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05); the prognosis of endoscopic treatment group was 91.30%,which was higher than that of control group 68.18% (P<0.05); the incidence of complications was 6.52% in the endoscopic treatment group and 11.36% in the control group,and there was no difference (P>0.05).Conclusion Endoscopic frontal keyhole approach in the treatment of moderate amount of basal ganglia HICH has significant clinical efficacy,is conducive to the recovery of neurological function,and is safe.

Key words: neuroendoscopy; approach via frontal keyhole; an equal amount; basal ganglia; hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!