目的：对比研究单纯弹簧圈栓塞与支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞介入治疗颅内动脉瘤的临床疗效。方法：选取我院2012年5月～2016年5月收治的70例颅内动脉瘤患者作为研究对象，采用随机数字表法将其分为对照组（单纯弹簧圈栓塞介入治疗）和观察组（支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞介入治疗）各35例，比较两组患者临床疗效。结果：观察组治疗总有效率91.43%、复发率0%，同期对照组治疗总有效率80%、复发率17.14%，组间差异有统计学意义；术前两组患者格拉斯哥昏迷评分（Glasgowcomascale，GCS）、改良的 Rankin 评分（ModifiedRankinScale，MRS）、巴塞尔指数（Barthelindex，BI）无明显差异，术后各指标相比较，观察组更为理想且差异有统计学意义；两组生活质量比较，差异有统计学意义。结论：相较于单纯弹簧圈栓塞介入治疗，支架辅助弹簧圈栓塞介入治疗颅内动脉瘤效果更佳，可作为临床治疗的优选方案加以推广使用。%Objective To compare the pure spring coil embolization and stent assisted coil embolization the clinical cura-tive effect of interventional treatment for intracranial aneurysms. Methods From May 2012 to May 2016 treated 70 cases of intracranial aneurysm patients as the research object, by using the method to random number table is divided into the con-trol group (simple spring coil embolization intervention) and observation group (stent assisted coil embolization intervention), 35 cases compare two groups of patients with clinical efficacy. Results The observation of treatment group total effectiveness 91.43%, 0% respectively over the same period in the control group total effective rate 80%, 17.14% respectively between groups was statistically significant difference; Two groups of patients with preoperative Glasgow coma scale (Glasgow coma scale, GCS), Modified Rankin score (Modified Rankin scale, MRS), Basel index (Barthel index, BI) has no obvious difference, the index compared with postoperative observation group is more perfect and the difference was statistically significant; The quality of life, similar between the two groups was statistically significant. Conclusion Compared with pure spring coil embolization interven-tion therapy, stent assisted coil embolization intervention treatment of intracranial aneurysm effect is better, can be used as a clinical treatment optimization scheme is extended.
展开▼
