切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华神经创伤外科电子杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (02) : 69 -73. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2016.02.002

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

重型颅脑损伤移动CT床旁扫描的临床特点分析
张志强1, 刘凤1, 李飞1, 刘丽娟1, 张强1, 陈立华1, 徐如祥1,()   
  1. 1. 100700 北京,北京军区总医院附属八一脑科医院
  • 收稿日期:2016-01-27 出版日期:2016-04-15
  • 通信作者: 徐如祥
  • 基金资助:
    军队十二五重点课题(BWS12J010)

Clinical features of mobile CT in patients with severe traumatic brain injury

Zhiqiang Zhang1, Feng Liu1, Fei Li1, Lijuan Liu1, Qiang Zhang1, Lihua Chen1, Ruxiang Xu1,()   

  1. 1. Affiliated Bayi Brain Hospital, The Military General Hospital of Beijing PLA, Beijing 100700, China
  • Received:2016-01-27 Published:2016-04-15
  • Corresponding author: Ruxiang Xu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xu Ruxiang, Email:
引用本文:

张志强, 刘凤, 李飞, 刘丽娟, 张强, 陈立华, 徐如祥. 重型颅脑损伤移动CT床旁扫描的临床特点分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2016, 02(02): 69-73.

Zhiqiang Zhang, Feng Liu, Fei Li, Lijuan Liu, Qiang Zhang, Lihua Chen, Ruxiang Xu. Clinical features of mobile CT in patients with severe traumatic brain injury[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2016, 02(02): 69-73.

目的

对比分析重型颅脑损伤患者在神经外科重症监护室(NICU)做床旁移动CT(MCT)扫描和转运患者到放射科做常规CT(CCT)扫描时,所需要的医护人员数、累计工作量、相关并发症发生率等,总结移动CT临床应用技术特色和优势。

方法

介绍重型颅脑损伤患者床旁移动CT扫描和常规CT扫描的方法,对比分析2010年8月至2015年12月北京军区总医院附属八一脑科医院1917例在NICU做移动CT床旁扫描和593例在放射科做常规CT扫描的相关并发症及技术操作失误、需要的医护人员数及累计工作量,并依据伤情将MCT组和CCT组分为特重型(GCS 3~5分)和重型(GCS 6~8分)两个亚组,分析移动CT在颅脑损伤的临床应用技术特色和优势。

结果

在NICU应用移动CT为重型颅脑损伤患者行床旁移动CT扫描,操作简便安全,无需转运患者。移动CT组中GCS 3~5和GCS 6~8分亚组的并发症发生率分别为3.32%和0%,而相同GCS亚组的常规CT扫描组并发症发生率高达26.87%,18.82%(P<0.05)。移动CT床旁扫描仅需要3名医护人员参加,GCS 3~5分和GCS 6~8分亚组耗时分别为(15.02±1.53) min和(13.01±1.31) min,3人累计工作耗时分别为(45.05±1.54) min和(39.03±1.32) min,而转运患者到放射科做常规CT扫描需要5名医护人员参加,其与MCT相同GCS亚组的耗时分别为(40.04±4.32) min和(30.03±3.13) min,5人的累计工作耗时高达(200.23±4.45) min和(150.18±3.35) min (P<0.05)。

结论

在NICU使用移动CT床旁扫描操作简便,安全可靠,可显著减少因院内转运患者到放射科做常规CT扫描引起的相关并发症,明显减少医护人员数量和累计工作时间。

Objective

To compare with severe craniocerebral injury patient on-site scanning by bedside mobile CT(MCT) in neurosurgical intensive care unit (NICU) or scanning by conventional CT(CCT) in Radiology with patient's intra-hospital transport. It analyses the number of staff required, cumulative workload, the incidence of complications between MCT and CCT scanning. The article summarize the clinical feature and Technology advantage of mobile CT.

Methods

It introduces CT scanning methods for severe craniocerebral injury by way of bedside MCT scanning with 1917 cases patients in the NICU and by CCT scanning with 593 cases patients in Radiology with patient's intra-hospital transport. It compared with the number of staff required, cumulative workload, the incidence of complications between MCT and CCT scanning. According to degree of injury, severe craniocerebral injury was divided into subgroups of GCS 3~5 and GCS 6~8. The clinical feature and technology advantage of mobile CT were discussed in this paper.

Results

The method of MCT bedside scanning in NICU for craniocerebral injury is simple and easy to operate, and no intra-hopspital transport of patients. By way of MCT bedside scanning in NICU, the complication rates were 3.32% and 0% with subgroups of GCS 3~5 and GCS 6~8 score respectively (P<0.05). By way of CCT scanning in Radiology, the complication rates were 26.87% or 18.82% with subgroups of GCS 3~5 and GCS 6~8 scores respectively, which were much higher than those of MCT scanning(P<0.05). The MCT bedside scanning, it need 3 staffs to participate works, including one CT technician, one nurse and one assistants, and its time consuming was (15.02±1.53) min and (13.01±1.31) min in subgroup of GCS 3~5 and GCS 6~8 respectively. And the total cumulative time-consuming were (45.05±1.54) min and (39.03±1.32) min with same GCS subgroups as MCT respectively. But, the CCT scanning, it required 5 staffs to participate works, including one doctor, one nurse , two assistants and one CT technician, and its time consuming was (40.04±4.32) min and(30.03±3.13) min in subgroup of GCS 3~5 and GCS 6~8 respectively. And the total cumulative time-consuming were (200.23±4.45) min and (150.18±3.35) min with same GCS subgroups as MCT respectively, which were mucu higher than those of MCT.

Conclusion

The use of mobile CT bedside scanning in NICU, its operation is simple, safe and reliable. It can significantly reduce the complications caused by intra-hospital transfer patients to Radiology with CCT scanning, and reduces the number of staffs or total cumulative time-consuming remarkably in this clinical trial.

图1 移动CT在NICU进行扫描的程序
表1 两组颅脑损伤患者伤情比较
图2 CCT和MCT检查组所需平均时间相比较
图3 CCT及MCT组检查累计耗时相比较
表2 CCT组患者转运和扫描过程中的并发症和技术操作失误
图4 CCT和MCT检查并发症及技术操作失误发生率比较
[1]
Rumboldt Z,Huda W,All JW. Review of potable CT with assessment of a dedicated head CT scanner[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2009, 30(9): 1630-1636.
[2]
Waydhas C. Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients[J]. Crit Care, 1999, 3(5): R83-89.
[3]
Smith I,Fleming S,Cernaianu A. Mishaps duing transport from the intensive care unit[J]. Crit Care Med, 1990, 18(3): 278-281.
[4]
Gunnarsson T,Theodorsson A,Karlsson P, et al. Mobile computerized tomography scanning in the neurosurgery intensive care unit: increase in patient safety and reduction of staff workload[J]. J Neurosurg, 2000, 93(3): 432-436.
[5]
张强,吴素芳,张志强,等.移动式床旁CT的初步临床应用[J].中华神经医学杂志, 2011, 10(2): 197-199.
[6]
张志强,张强,魏群,等.移动式床旁CT颅脑扫描临床应用分析[J/CD].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2015, 1(2): 21-23.
[7]
Andrew P Carlson. The benefits of a portable head CT scanner[J]. Computed Tomography, 2011, 11(3): 8-10.
[8]
Peace K,Wilensky EM,Frangos S, et al. The use of a potable head CT scanner in the intensive care unit[J]. J Neurosci Nurs, 2010, 42(2): 109-116.
[9]
Tarnow-Mordi WO,Hau C,Warden A, et al. Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit[J]. Lancet, 2000, 356(9225): 185-189.
[10]
Masryk T,Kolonick R,Painter T, et al. The economic and clinical benefits of portable head/neck CT imaging in the intensive care unit[J]. Radiol Manage, 2008, 30(2): 50-54.
[11]
McCunn M,Mirvis S,Reynolds N, et al. Physician utilization of a portable computed tomography scanner in the intensive care unit[J]. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28(12): 3808-3813.
[12]
Matson MB,Jarosz JM,Gallacher D, et al. Evakuation of head examinations produced with a mobile CT unit[J]. Br J Radiol, 1999, 72(859): 631-636.
[13]
Alexander RE,Gunderman RB. EMI and the first CT scanner[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2010, 7(10): 778-781.
[14]
Hillman J,Sturnegk P,Yonas H, et al. Bedside monitoring of CBF with xenon-CT and a mobile scanner: a novel method in neurointensive care[J]. Br J Neurosurg, 2005, 19(5): 395-401.
[15]
Mayo-Smith WW,Rhea JT,Smith WJ, et al. Transportable versus fixed plantform CT scanner: comparison os costs[J]. Radiology, 2003, 226(1): 63-68.
[16]
Butler WE,Piaggio CM,Constantinou C, et al. A mobile computed tomographic scanner with intraoperative and intensive care unit applications[J]. Neurosurgery, 1998, 42(6): 1304-1310.
[1] 王守森, 傅世龙, 鲜亮, 林珑. 深入理解控制性减压技术对创伤性颅脑损伤术中脑膨出的预防机制与效果[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 257-262.
[2] 吴东阳, 林向丹, 石佐林, 赵玉龙, 王振, 文安国, 纪鑫, 李俊之, 赵明光. NF-L、NLRP3、S100B 蛋白在颅脑损伤严重程度及预后评估中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 279-285.
[3] 罗磊, 熊建平, 郑宏伟, 王嗣嵩, 柴祥, 吴青, 潘海鹏. 静脉留置针穿刺引流治疗颅骨修补术后硬膜外积液一例报道[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 315-317.
[4] 从长春, 王春琳, 武孝刚, 王金标, 章福彬, 孙磊, 王李. 重型颅脑损伤患者呼吸机相关性肺炎的危险因素及病原学分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 151-157.
[5] 毛进鹏, 陶治鹤, 刘琦, 王勇, 周明安, 陈劲松, 田少斌. 保守治疗大量创伤性硬膜外血肿的体会(附10例报告)[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 164-168.
[6] 辛强, 朱文豪, 何川, 李文臣, 陈勃, 王海峰. 神经胶质细胞来源的外泌体miRNAs对创伤性颅脑损伤后神经炎症的影响[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 169-173.
[7] 鹿海龙, 朱玉辐, 贺雪凤, 蔡廷江, 王栋, 朱圣玲, 张恩刚, 王策. 创伤性颅脑损伤二次手术的危险因素分析及预警模型构建[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 97-101.
[8] 李鑫, 刘炳辉, 程名, 王凡, 刘玉明, 周绍明. 基于Rotterdam CT评分评估的颅脑损伤术中控制性减压的临床应用价值[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 16-21.
[9] 袁宝玉, 管义祥, 王东流, 陆正. 不同时机颅骨修补术治疗颅脑外伤的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 35-41.
[10] 罗丹, 柏宋磊, 易峰. HMGB1-TLR2/TLR4/RAGE通路与颅脑损伤并发认知功能障碍病情变化的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 28-34.
[11] 刘彪, 巍山, 关永胜. 基于Rotterdam CT评分及凝血功能指标的创伤性颅脑损伤预后预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 22-27.
[12] 吕伟豪, 费晓炜, 武秀权, 何鑫, 郇宇, 吴霜, 豆雅楠, 费舟, 胡世颉. 重型颅脑损伤合并应激性高血糖患者血糖水平与预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 338-342.
[13] 沈汉超, 何炯周, 田君, 魏梁锋, 王守森. 老年重型颅脑损伤合并脑疝患者预后不良的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 350-354.
[14] 聂玉金, 曹培成. 创伤性颅脑损伤患者保守治疗发生脑积水的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 355-359.
[15] 胡志恒, 任洪波, 宋志远, 张运刚, 韩晓正. 血清sTIM-3及其配体Gal-9、CEACAM-1与创伤性颅脑损伤患者脑损伤程度及预后的关系[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 201-207.
阅读次数
全文


摘要