中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
China Foreign Medical Treatment
2015年
28期
11-13
,共3页
重型颅脑损伤%改良去骨板减压术%疗效
重型顱腦損傷%改良去骨闆減壓術%療效
중형로뇌손상%개량거골판감압술%료효
Severe craniocerebral injury%Improved decompressive craniotomy%Curative effect
目的 探讨重型颅脑损伤患者采取改良去骨瓣减压术的疗效. 方法 随机选取200例于2010年5月—2015年5月期间该院接收的重度颅脑损伤患者,将其按手术方式的不同分为对照组与实验组,两组分别采用标准外伤大骨瓣减压术和改良去骨瓣减压术,观察两组疗效. 结果 术后2周,实验组GCS评分为(12.31±2.34)分,对照组为(9.51±1.32)分,实验组GCS评分较对照组明显要高(P<0.05);同时治疗后实验组恢复良好率为51.0%、死亡率5.0%、重度残疾8%、轻度残疾29%、植物生存7.0%,而对照组分别为32.0%、14.0%、25.0%、10%、19.0%,实验组预后明显优于对照组(P<0.05);另外实验组术后 20例(20.0%)发生并发症,而对照组共39例(39.0%)发生并发症,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05). 结论 对重度颅脑损伤患者采取改良大骨瓣减压术,疗效显著,值得推广.
目的 探討重型顱腦損傷患者採取改良去骨瓣減壓術的療效. 方法 隨機選取200例于2010年5月—2015年5月期間該院接收的重度顱腦損傷患者,將其按手術方式的不同分為對照組與實驗組,兩組分彆採用標準外傷大骨瓣減壓術和改良去骨瓣減壓術,觀察兩組療效. 結果 術後2週,實驗組GCS評分為(12.31±2.34)分,對照組為(9.51±1.32)分,實驗組GCS評分較對照組明顯要高(P<0.05);同時治療後實驗組恢複良好率為51.0%、死亡率5.0%、重度殘疾8%、輕度殘疾29%、植物生存7.0%,而對照組分彆為32.0%、14.0%、25.0%、10%、19.0%,實驗組預後明顯優于對照組(P<0.05);另外實驗組術後 20例(20.0%)髮生併髮癥,而對照組共39例(39.0%)髮生併髮癥,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05). 結論 對重度顱腦損傷患者採取改良大骨瓣減壓術,療效顯著,值得推廣.
목적 탐토중형로뇌손상환자채취개량거골판감압술적료효. 방법 수궤선취200례우2010년5월—2015년5월기간해원접수적중도로뇌손상환자,장기안수술방식적불동분위대조조여실험조,량조분별채용표준외상대골판감압술화개량거골판감압술,관찰량조료효. 결과 술후2주,실험조GCS평분위(12.31±2.34)분,대조조위(9.51±1.32)분,실험조GCS평분교대조조명현요고(P<0.05);동시치료후실험조회복량호솔위51.0%、사망솔5.0%、중도잔질8%、경도잔질29%、식물생존7.0%,이대조조분별위32.0%、14.0%、25.0%、10%、19.0%,실험조예후명현우우대조조(P<0.05);령외실험조술후 20례(20.0%)발생병발증,이대조조공39례(39.0%)발생병발증,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05). 결론 대중도로뇌손상환자채취개량대골판감압술,료효현저,치득추엄.
Objective To study the curative effect of improved decompressive craniotomy in the treatment of severe craniocerebral injury. Methods 200 patients with severe craniocerebral injury treated in our hospital from May 2010 to May 2015 were selected and divided into control group and experimental group according to different operation schemes. Two groups respectively adopted the standard large trauma craniotomy and improved decompressive craniotomy. The curative effect of the two groups was observed. Results Two weeks after surgery, the GCS of the experimental was significantly higher than that of the control group [(12.31 ±2.34) points vs (9.51±1.32) points](P<0.05); at the same time, rate of good recovery, mortality, severe disability, mild disability, and per-sistent vegetative status was 51.0%, 5.0%, 8%, 29%, 7.0%respectively in the experimental group and 32.0%, 14.0%, 25.0%, 10%and 19.0% respectively in the control group, which showed that the prognosis was significantly better in the experimental group than in the control group with statistical difference (P<0.05). In addition, the complication rate was 20.0%(20 cases) in the experi-mental group and 39.0% (39 cases) in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant, P<0.05. Conclusion The improved decompressive craniotomy has an obvious effect on the management of severe craniocerebral injury, therefore it is worthy of clinical promotion.
