切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华卫生应急电子杂志

中华卫生应急电子杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 06 ›› Issue (02) : 74 -78. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2020.02.003

所属专题： 文献；

论著

手术治疗高血压基底节脑出血立体定向钻空引流的疗效分析
苏道庆1, 马红玲2, 杜芳3, 张士刚1, 周光华1, 刘怀新1, 惠浴祚1, 李国梁1, 任松涛1,†()   
  1. 1. 252000　山东聊城，山东第一医科大学附属聊城医院、聊城人民医院脑科医院神经外科
    2. 252000　山东聊城，山东第一医科大学神经内科
    3. 252000　山东聊城，山东第一医科大学信息科
  • 收稿日期:2020-01-05 出版日期:2020-04-18
  • 通信作者: 任松涛

Stereotactic drilling surgery for treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia

Daoqing Su1, Hongling Ma2, Fang Du3, Shigang Zhang1, Guanghua Zhou1, Huaixin Liu1, Yuzuo Hui1, Guoliang Li1, Songtao Ren1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Liaocheng People’s Hospital and Liaocheng Brain Hospital, Liaocheng Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Liaocheng 252000, China
    2. Neurology Liaocheng People’s Hospital and Liaocheng Brain Hospital, Liaocheng Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Liaocheng 252000, China
    3. Information Centre, Liaocheng People’s Hospital and Liaocheng Brain Hospital, Liaocheng Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Liaocheng 252000, China
  • Received:2020-01-05 Published:2020-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Songtao Ren
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Ren Songtao, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

苏道庆, 马红玲, 杜芳, 张士刚, 周光华, 刘怀新, 惠浴祚, 李国梁, 任松涛. 手术治疗高血压基底节脑出血立体定向钻空引流的疗效分析[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2020, 06(02): 74-78.

Daoqing Su, Hongling Ma, Fang Du, Shigang Zhang, Guanghua Zhou, Huaixin Liu, Yuzuo Hui, Guoliang Li, Songtao Ren. Stereotactic drilling surgery for treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2020, 06(02): 74-78.

目的

比较非手术治疗与立体定向手术治疗中小量高血压基底节脑出血的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析聊城市人民医院脑科医院神经内、外科2016年7月至2019年7月收治的182例高血压基底节性脑出血(20～40 mL)患者临床资料，其中男性102例，女性80例；年龄38～79岁，平均(52.9±1.9)岁。按照患者所接受的治疗方案将研究对象进行分组：90例采用了规范药物治疗者为非手术治疗组，92例接受了立体定向钻孔引流手术者为定向引流组。分别根据动态电子计算机断层扫描(CT)评价其排空率，在院期间再出血率和颅内感染率评价其临床安全性，平均住院日及费用评价其社会经济负担；全部随访6个月，根据病死率、改良Rankin量表评分(modified Rankin scale, mRs)评价其远期预后。

结果

与非手术治疗组比较，定向引流组在发病后第7天的血肿排空率更高[(90.67±3.31)%比(25.23±2.41)%]、平均住院日缩短[(10.1±2.8)d比(20.3±3.9)d]、平均住院费降低[(18 158.1±2 171.3)元比(21 493.3±3 729.5)元]，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)，但两组的在院期间再出血率(6.7%比5.4%)和颅内感染率[1.1%(1/90)比3.3%(3/92)]的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗6月后，定向引流组的mRs[(2.57±0.56)分比(3.42±0.21)分]和病死率[10.0%(9/90)、2.2%(2/92)]均低于非手术治疗组，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

针对中小量高血压基底节性脑出血，与非手术治疗比较，立体定向手术在具备安全性的同时，临床预后更好、经济负担更低。

关键词: 高血压基底节脑出血, 立体定向手术, 非手术治疗, 安全性, 预后
Objective

To compare the clinical safety, prognosis and economic burden of conservative and stereotactic surgery in the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia (HICH) (20-40 mL).

Methods

The clinical data of 182 patients with HICH (20-40 mL) admitted to Liaocheng Brain Hospital from July 2016 to July 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 102 males and 80 females, aged 38 to 79 years, with an average age of (52.9±1.9) years. The study subjects were divided into two groups according to the treatment received by patients: 90 patients who received standard drug treatment were conservative treatment groups, and 92 patients who received stereotactic drilling surgery were directional drainage groups. Dynamic CT was used to evaluate the evacuation rate of the hematoma, complication rate to the clinical safety, and mean hospital stay and cost to socioeconomic burden All patients were followed up for 6 months, and the prognosis was evaluated according to mortality and modified Rankin scale (mRs).

Results

Compared with the conservative treatment group, the evacuation rate of hematoma on the 7th day after onset was higher in the targeted drainage group [(90.67±3.31)% vs. (25.23±2.41)%], and the average hospital stay was shortened [(10.1±2.8) d vs. (20.3±3.9) d], the average hospitalization cost was reduced [(18 158.1±2 171.3) yuan vs. (21 493.3±3 729.5) yuan], and the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in re-bleeding rate (6.7% vs. 5.4%) and intracranial infection rate [1.1% (1/90) vs. 3.3% (3/92)] during the hospital (P> 0.05). After 6 months of treatment, the mRs [(2.57±0.56) vs. (3.42±0.21)] and mortality [10.0% (9/90) vs.2.2% (2/92)] in the directional drainage group were lower than those of conservative treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

For patients with HICH (20-40 mL), stereotactic surgery is safer, the clinical prognosis is better and the economic burden is lower, compared with conservative treatment.

Key words: Hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia, Stereotactic surgery, Conservative treatment, Safety, Prognosis
表1 两组中小出血量基底节区HICH患者的基线资料比较
组别 例数 年龄(岁，±s) 性别[例(%)] 嗜烟酒[例(%)] 血肿位置[例(%)] 血肿体积(mL，±s) GCS评分(分，±s)
男 女 有 无 左 右
非手术治疗组 90 52.4±3.6 49(54.4) 41(45.6) 43(47.8) 47(52.2) 44(48.9) 46(51.1) 24.9±3.9 12.5±1.9
定向引流组 92 53.3±5.7 52(56.5) 40(43.5) 45(48.9) 47(51.1) 45(48.9) 47(51.1) 25.2±4.7 12.3±1.6
t/χ2值 ? －0.22 0.08 ? 0.02 ? 0.00 ? －0.11 0.23
P值 ? >0.05 >0.05 ? >0.05 ? >0.05 ? >0.05 >0.05
表2 两组中小出血量基底节区HICH患者治疗后的临床评价指标比较(±s)
组别 例数 血肿排空率(%) 再出血率[例(%)] 颅内感染率[例(%)] 平均住院日(d) 平均住院费用(d) 6个月死亡率[例(%)] mRs (分)
非手术治疗组 90 25.23±2.41 6(6.7%) 1(1.1%) 20.3±3.9 21493.3±3729.5 9(10.0%) 3.42±0.21
定向引流组 92 90.67±3.31 5(5.4%) 3(3.3) 10.1±2.8 18158.1±2171.3 2(2.2%) 2.57±0.56
t/χ2值 ? －147.52 0.12 ? 10.32 6.83 4.91 7.89
P值 ? <0.05 >0.05 >0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
图1 保守治疗组中小出血量基底节区HICH患者的头颅CT
图2 定向引流组中小出血量基底节区HICH患者的头颅CT
[1]
Meretoja A，Strbian D，Putaala J，et al.SMASH-U：a proposal for etiologic classification of intracerebral hemorrhage[J]．Stroke，2012，43(10)：2592-2597.
[2]
Mendelow AD，Gregson BA，Rowan EN，et al.Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas(STICH Ⅱ)：a randomised trial[J]．Lancet，2013，382(9890)：397-408.
[3]
Staykov D，Huttner HB，Köhrmann M，et al.Novel Approaches to the Treatment of Intracerebral Haemorrhage[J]．Int J Stroke，2010，5(6)：457-465.
[4]
中华医学会神经病学分会，中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组．中国脑出血诊治指南(2019)[J]．中华神经科杂志，2019，52(12)：994-1005.
[5]
Morotti A，Phuah CL，Anderson CD，et al. Leukocyte count and intracerebral hemorrhage expansion[J]. Stroke，2016，47(6)：1473-1478.
[6]
Giede-Jeppe A，Bobinger T，Gerner ST，et al. Lymphocytopenia is an independent predictor of unfavorable functional outcome in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. Stroke，2016，47(5)：1239-1246.
[7]
Zheng H，Chen C，Zhang J，et al. Mechanism and Therapy of Brain Edema after Intracerebral Hemorrhage[J]．Cerebrovasc Dis，2016，42(3-4)：155-169.
[8]
Scaggiante J，Zhang X，Mocco J，et al. Minimally Invasive Surgery for Intracerebral Hemorrhage[J]．Stroke，2018，49(11)：2612-2620.
[9]
Hanley DF，Thompson RE，Rosenblum M，et al. Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation(MISTIE Ⅲ)：a randomised，controlled，open-label，blinded endpoint phase 3 trial[J]．Lancet，2019，393(10175)：1021-1032.
[10]
Staykov D，Wagner I，Volbers B，et al. Natural course of perihemorrhagic edema after intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. Stroke，2011，42(9)：2625-2629.
[11]
Gsiorowski K，Brokos B，Echeverria V，et al. RAGE-TLR Crosstalk sustains chronic inflammation in neurodegeneration[J]. Mol Neurobiol，2018，55(2)：1-14.
[12]
Orakcioglu B，Kentar MM，Schiebel P，et al. Perihemorrhagic ischemia occurs in a volume-dependent manner as assessed by multimodal cerebral monitoring in a porcine model of intracerebral hemorrhage[J]．Neurocrit Care，2015，22(1)：133-139.
[13]
Hanley DF，Thompson RE，Muschelli J，et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation(MISTIE)：a randomised，controlled，open-label，phase 2 trial [J]．Lancet Neurol，2016，15(12)：1228-1237.
[14]
Wang W，Zhou N，Wang C．Minimally invasive surgery for patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage with large hematoma volume：a retrospective study[J]．World Neurosurg，2017，105：348-358.
[1] 张思平, 刘伟, 马鹏程. 全膝关节置换术后下肢轻度内翻对线对疗效的影响[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 808-817.
[2] 杨倩, 李翠芳, 张婉秋. 原发性肝癌自发性破裂出血急诊TACE术后的近远期预后及影响因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 33-36.
[3] 栗艳松, 冯会敏, 刘明超, 刘泽鹏, 姜秋霞. STIP1在三阴性乳腺癌组织中的表达及临床意义研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 52-56.
[4] 马伟强, 马斌林, 吴中语, 张莹. microRNA在三阴性乳腺癌进展中发挥的作用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 111-114.
[5] 姜明, 罗锐, 龙成超. 闭孔疝的诊断与治疗：10年73例患者诊疗经验总结[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 706-710.
[6] 潘冰, 吕少诚, 赵昕, 李立新, 郎韧, 贺强. 淋巴结清扫数目对远端胆管癌胰十二指肠切除手术疗效的影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 608-612.
[7] 张其坤, 商福超, 李琪, 栗光明, 王孟龙. 联合脾切除对肝癌合并门静脉高压症患者根治性切除术后的生存获益分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 613-618.
[8] 张文华, 陶焠, 胡添松. 不同部位外生型肝癌临床病理特点及其对术后肝内复发和预后影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 651-655.
[9] 张维志, 刘连新. 基于生物信息学分析IPO7在肝癌中的表达及意义[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 694-701.
[10] 叶文涛, 吴忠均, 廖锐. 癌旁组织ALOX15表达与肝癌根治性切除术后预后的关系[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 708-712.
[11] 钟广俊, 刘春华, 朱万森, 徐晓雷, 王兆军. MRI联合不同扫描序列在胃癌术前分期诊断及化疗效果和预后的评估[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 378-382.
[12] 李永胜, 孙家和, 郭书伟, 卢义康, 刘洪洲. 高龄结直肠癌患者根治术后短期并发症及其影响因素[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 962-967.
[13] 王军, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 索利斌, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 腹膜后肿瘤切除术中大量输血患者的麻醉管理特点与分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 844-849.
[14] 索利斌, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 王军, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 原发性腹膜后副神经节瘤切除术麻醉管理的特点和分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 771-776.
[15] 朴成林, 蓝炘, 司振铎, 冯健, 安峰铎, 李强, 谈明坤, 赵娜, 冷建军. 局部晚期右半结肠癌行结肠癌根治联合胰十二指肠切除术疗效分析：附5例报告[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 666-670.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号