河北医学
河北醫學
하북의학
HEBEI MEDICINE
2015年
4期
555-557
,共3页
劲动脉内膜剥脱术%颈动脉狭窄%疗效
勁動脈內膜剝脫術%頸動脈狹窄%療效
경동맥내막박탈술%경동맥협착%료효
Carotid endarterectomy%Carotid artery stenosis%Curative effect
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）mL、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）mL、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。
目的：研究兩種頸動脈內膜剝脫術（ CEA ）式治療頸動脈狹窄的臨床療效。方法：迴顧性分析我院174例接受頸動脈內膜剝脫結閤補片成形術（PCEA）以及翻轉式頸動脈內膜剝脫術（ECEA）的頸動脈狹窄患者，行PCEA術的患者分為對照組，ECEA為觀察組，對比兩組臨床療效。結果：根據研究結果顯示，觀察組的術中齣血量（44．35±16．57）mL、手術時間（87．99±19．65）min、住院時間（15．87±4．59）d均明顯少于對照組術中齣血量（61．59±30．54）mL、手術時間（118．45±24．56）min、住院時間（16．86±5．49）d，兩組差異有統計學意義（P＜0．05），而併髮癥以及術後再狹窄差異無統計學意義（P＞0．05）。結論：ECEA和PCEA 兩種術式均能夠起到較好的療效，兩者相比ECEA 具有更多的優勢，但是在實際臨床治療中，必鬚結閤患者的頸動脈情況以及執刀醫師的技術水平擇優選擇。
목적：연구량충경동맥내막박탈술（ CEA ）식치료경동맥협착적림상료효。방법：회고성분석아원174례접수경동맥내막박탈결합보편성형술（PCEA）이급번전식경동맥내막박탈술（ECEA）적경동맥협착환자，행PCEA술적환자분위대조조，ECEA위관찰조，대비량조림상료효。결과：근거연구결과현시，관찰조적술중출혈량（44．35±16．57）mL、수술시간（87．99±19．65）min、주원시간（15．87±4．59）d균명현소우대조조술중출혈량（61．59±30．54）mL、수술시간（118．45±24．56）min、주원시간（16．86±5．49）d，량조차이유통계학의의（P＜0．05），이병발증이급술후재협착차이무통계학의의（P＞0．05）。결론：ECEA화PCEA 량충술식균능구기도교호적료효，량자상비ECEA 구유경다적우세，단시재실제림상치료중，필수결합환자적경동맥정황이급집도의사적기술수평택우선택。
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) mL, op-eration 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 differ-ence between two groups ( P <0.05) , but no significant difference in postoperative complications and rest-enosis ( 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 com-bined with carotid artery patients and physicians to select the knife .
