摘要
目的为基底节区高血压脑出血的微创方式的选择提供依据。方法选择基底节区高血压脑出血患者80例,随机分为软通道组和硬通道组。两组中按血肿大小又分别分为小量组（25~40ml）和大量组（41~60ml）。两组均于早期行血肿清除,硬通道组在WTF-1型定向仪导引下行穿刺清除血肿。四组患者在治疗前和治疗后1周、2周分别行Glasgow Coma Scale（GCS）量表评分;治疗前和治疗后14d分别行Scandinavian（SSS）卒中评分量表评分;治疗后3个月行改良Rankin Scale（MRS）量表评分。结果两组手术后GCS评分结果差异有统计学意义,硬通道小量组与软通道小量组差异有统计学意义,硬通道小量组优于软通道小量组。结论通过评价,在小血肿组,应用WTF-1型定向仪硬通道有优势。
Objective To provide scientific guidance for the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage by microinvasive surgery. Methods Eighty patients with basal ganglia hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage were randomly divided into the soft-channel group and the hard-channel group, which were further divided into the little quantity hemorrhage subgroup （25~40 ml） and large quantity hemorrhage subgroup （41~60 ml） according to the size of hematoma. Patients in the soft-channel group were treated with microinvasive surgeries with soft tube in the early period to remove the intracerebral hematoma, while those in the hard-channel group were treated with hard tube technique by WTF-1 position finder in the early period to clear the intracerebral hematoma. The clinical manifestations of all the patients were scored by the Glasgow Coma Scale （GCS） before treatment, one week after treatment and two weeks after treatment. The Scandinavian Stroke Scale （SSS） was used for all the patients before treatment and the 14th day after treatment. The Modified Rankin Scale （MRS） three months after treatment. Results Compared with the little quantity hemorrhage subgroup in the soft-channel group, the GCS scores are significantly superior in the the little quantity hemorrhage subgroup in the hard-channel group. Conclusion It is more advantages for patients with little quantity hemorrhage to use hard-channel minimally invasive puncture by WTF-1 position finder.
出处
《海南医学》
CAS
2011年第22期45-47,共3页
Hainan Medical Journal
关键词
基底节出血
软通道
硬通道
WTF-1型定向仪
Basal ganglia hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
Soft-channel
Hard- channel
WTF-1 position finder
