中国医师进修杂志
中國醫師進脩雜誌
중국의사진수잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF POSTGRADUATES OF MEDICINE
2009年
35期
28-31
,共4页
颅内出血%高血压性%穿刺术%康复
顱內齣血%高血壓性%穿刺術%康複
로내출혈%고혈압성%천자술%강복
Intracranial hemorrhage%hypertensive%Punctures%Rehabilitation
目的 观察应用针钻一体穿刺治疗重症高血压脑出血的疗效.方法 对50例重症高血压脑出血患者(治疗组)采用微创穿刺结合早期系统的康复治疗,并以49例常规治疗患者作为对照组.结果 (1)治疗组生存37例,对照组生存28例;治疗组生存患者治疗4周后格拉斯哥昏迷评分(CCS)明显高于对照组(P<0.01).(2)功能独立性评价量表(FIM)评分治疗组和对照组入院时[(58±12)分比(60±11)分]及治疗第14天[(64±13)分比(62±12)分]差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但治疗第1个月[(76±16)分比(65±14)分]及第3个月[(90±22)分比(69±18)分]时治疗组FIM评分均显著优于对照组(P<0.05).(3)美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分入院时治疗组[(17.5±3.5)分]和对照组[(16.9±3.4)分]比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),康复治疗第14天[(14.3±3.3)分比(16.2±3.5)分]、第1个月[(12.1±2.4)分比(15.7±3.4)分]、第3个月[(9.0±3.4)分比(12.2±3.6)分]时治疗组NIHSS评分显著优于对照组(P<0.05).结论 微创穿刺治疗重症高血压脑出血安全有效,疗效优于常规内科治疗.
目的 觀察應用針鑽一體穿刺治療重癥高血壓腦齣血的療效.方法 對50例重癥高血壓腦齣血患者(治療組)採用微創穿刺結閤早期繫統的康複治療,併以49例常規治療患者作為對照組.結果 (1)治療組生存37例,對照組生存28例;治療組生存患者治療4週後格拉斯哥昏迷評分(CCS)明顯高于對照組(P<0.01).(2)功能獨立性評價量錶(FIM)評分治療組和對照組入院時[(58±12)分比(60±11)分]及治療第14天[(64±13)分比(62±12)分]差異無統計學意義(P>0.05),但治療第1箇月[(76±16)分比(65±14)分]及第3箇月[(90±22)分比(69±18)分]時治療組FIM評分均顯著優于對照組(P<0.05).(3)美國國立衛生研究院卒中量錶(NIHSS)評分入院時治療組[(17.5±3.5)分]和對照組[(16.9±3.4)分]比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05),康複治療第14天[(14.3±3.3)分比(16.2±3.5)分]、第1箇月[(12.1±2.4)分比(15.7±3.4)分]、第3箇月[(9.0±3.4)分比(12.2±3.6)分]時治療組NIHSS評分顯著優于對照組(P<0.05).結論 微創穿刺治療重癥高血壓腦齣血安全有效,療效優于常規內科治療.
목적 관찰응용침찬일체천자치료중증고혈압뇌출혈적료효.방법 대50례중증고혈압뇌출혈환자(치료조)채용미창천자결합조기계통적강복치료,병이49례상규치료환자작위대조조.결과 (1)치료조생존37례,대조조생존28례;치료조생존환자치료4주후격랍사가혼미평분(CCS)명현고우대조조(P<0.01).(2)공능독립성평개량표(FIM)평분치료조화대조조입원시[(58±12)분비(60±11)분]급치료제14천[(64±13)분비(62±12)분]차이무통계학의의(P>0.05),단치료제1개월[(76±16)분비(65±14)분]급제3개월[(90±22)분비(69±18)분]시치료조FIM평분균현저우우대조조(P<0.05).(3)미국국립위생연구원졸중량표(NIHSS)평분입원시치료조[(17.5±3.5)분]화대조조[(16.9±3.4)분]비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05),강복치료제14천[(14.3±3.3)분비(16.2±3.5)분]、제1개월[(12.1±2.4)분비(15.7±3.4)분]、제3개월[(9.0±3.4)분비(12.2±3.6)분]시치료조NIHSS평분현저우우대조조(P<0.05).결론 미창천자치료중증고혈압뇌출혈안전유효,료효우우상규내과치료.
Objective To observe the effect of severe hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage with minimally invasive technology. Method Fifty patients of severe hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage treated by minimally invasive puncture combined early systemic rehabilitation (treatment group), and 49 patients with conventional treatment as control group. Results (1)The survival number were 37 cases in treatment group and 28 cases in control group. The survival patients with GCS after 4 weeks in treatment group was significantly higher than that in control group (P < 0.01). (2) FIM score of treatment group and control group on admission [(58±12) scores vs (60±11) scores] and the 14 th day [(64±13) scores vs (62±12) scores] after treatment, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05), but the FIM score of treatment group at the first month [(76±16) scores vs (65±14) scores] and the third month [(90±22) scores vs (69±18) scores] after treatment were significantly superior to eontrol group (P < 0.05). (3) NIHSS score of treatment group and control group on admission were (17.5±3.5) scores and (16.9±3.4) scores (P > 0.05), the NIHSS score of treatment group at the 14th day,the first month and the third month were significantly superior to control group [(14.3±3.3) scores vs (16.2±3.5) scores, (12.1±2.4) scores vs (15.7±3.4) scores, (9.0±3.4) scores vs(12.2±23.6) scores, respectively] (P< 0.05). Conclusion The treatment of severe hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage with minimally invasive percutaneous is safe and effective, the effect is superior to conventional medical treatment.
