高血压性基底节区脑出血的不同微创手术治疗比较

摘要

目的:比较小骨窗微创开颅显微镜下手术及CT引导穿刺微创血肿外引流术治疗高血压性基底节区脑出血的疗效.方法:将高血压性基底节区脑出血患者按治疗方法分成小骨窗微创开颅术组和CT引导穿刺微创血肿外引流术组,分别进行相应的治疗,进行神经功能缺损程度等各项指标评分.结果:小骨窗微创开颅术组中患者意识障碍恢复时间(2.24±1.06)d,神经功能缺损评分由(41.09±1.56)分改善为(8.24±1.26)分;CT引导穿刺微创血肿外引流术组中患者意识障碍恢复时间(7.23±1.13)d,神经功能缺损评分由(40.78±1.89)分改善为(26.13±1.23)分,两组比较,差异有高度统计学意义(P<0.01);小骨窗微创开颅术组并发症、血肿清除量及疗效指标优于CT引导穿刺微创血肿外引流术组,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:小骨窗微创开颅显微镜下手术清除血肿充分,止血彻底,疗效优于CT引导穿刺微创血肿外引流术.%Objective: To compare the curative effeet of treatment for hypertension basal ganglia bleeding between the small bone flap craniotomy microscopic snrgery, and CT guide puncture the drainage of minimally invasive hematoma.Methods: The hemorrhage patients were divided into small bone window craniotomy group and minimally invasive CT guide puncture of the drainage of minimally invasive hematoma group according to the treatment method, to do corresponding treatment respectively, for neurologic deficits each index rating degree. Results: In the small bone window eraniotomy group, consciousness obstacle recovery time (2.24±1.06) d, neurologic deficits score from (41.09±1.56) pointed to (8.24±1.26) points, CT guide puncture the drainage of minimally invasive hematoma group: consciousness obstacle recovery time (7.23±1.13) d, neurologic deficits score from (40.78±1.89) pointed to (26.13±1.23) points, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P＜0.01); small bone window eraniotomy group's eompfications, hematoma quantity and the treatment effect index were better than those of minimally invasive CT guide puncture of the drainage of minimally invasive hematoma group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant significantly (P＜0.05). Conclusion:The small bone window craniotomy group can fudly remove the hematoma and completely stop bleed. It is superior to CT guided puncture the drainage of minimally invasive hematoma.