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 ›› 2019, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (01) : 29 -32. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2019.01.007

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

骨瓣阶梯减压控制术对重型颅脑损伤患者预后的影响
王斌1,(), 梅晋1   
  1. 1. 435500 黄冈,黄梅县人民医院神经外科
  • 收稿日期:2018-11-05 出版日期:2019-02-15
  • 通信作者: 王斌

Effect of stepped decompression and control of bone flap on prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury

Bin Wang1,(), Jin Mei1   

  1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Huangmei People’s Hospital, Huanggang 435500, China
  • Received:2018-11-05 Published:2019-02-15
  • Corresponding author: Bin Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Bin, Email:
引用本文:

王斌, 梅晋. 骨瓣阶梯减压控制术对重型颅脑损伤患者预后的影响[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2019, 05(01): 29-32.

Bin Wang, Jin Mei. Effect of stepped decompression and control of bone flap on prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 05(01): 29-32.

目的

分析骨瓣阶梯减压控制术对重型颅脑损伤患者预后的影响。

方法

选取黄梅县人民医院脑外科自2014年11月至2016年11月收治的84例重型颅脑损伤患者为研究对象,按照随机数字表法分为试验组(42例)和对照组(42例),其中试验组采用骨瓣阶梯减压控制术,对照组采用常规骨瓣开颅术。比较2组患者术前、术后1、3、7 d颅内压,观察2组患者并发症发生情况,比较2组患者术后1个月神经功能缺损评分(NIHSS)。

结果

试验组术后1、3、7 d的颅内压均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组并发症发生率明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者术后1个月的NIHSS评分都有所降低,且试验组的NIHSS评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组的治疗疗效明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

与常规骨瓣开颅术治疗比较,骨瓣阶梯减压控制术能加快重型颅脑损伤患者的神经功能恢复,减少并发症的发生,且疗效好。

Objective

To analyze the effect of stepped decompression and control of bone flap on prognosis of patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Methods

Eighty-four patients with severe traumatic brain injury admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery, Huangmei People’s Hospital from November 2014 to November 2016 were selected as the study subjects. They were divided into experimental group (42 cases) and control group (42 cases) according to random number table method. The experimental group was treated with stepped decompression of bone flaps, while the control group was treated with conventional craniotomy. Intracranial pressure (ICP) was compared before operation, 1, 3 and 7 d after operation in two groups. Complications were observed in two groups. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was compared 1 month after operation in two groups.

Results

The ICP of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group on the 1st, 3rd and 7th day after operation (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). The NIHSS score of the two groups decreased 1 month after operation, and the NIHSS score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The therapeutic effect of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with conventional craniotomy, stepped decompression and control of bone flap can accelerate the recovery of nerve function and reduce the occurrence of complications in patients with severe traumatic brain injury, and has good curative effect.

表1 2组患者手术前后的颅内压比较(±s,mmHg)
表2 2组患者的术后并发症发生情况比较[例(%)]
表3 2组患者术后神经功能缺损评分比较(±s,分)
表4 2组患者术后疗效比较[例(%)]
[1]
AI-Jehani H, Petrecca K, Martel P, et al. Decompressive craniectomy for ischemic stroke: effect of hemorrhagic transformation on outcome[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2016, 25(9):2177-2183.
[2]
李建军,徐文中,丁健,等.去骨瓣减压术对对冲性颅脑外伤颅内压和预后影响的Meta分析[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志, 2018, 17(2):155-158.
[3]
Su CH, Liu JT, Chang CS, et al. Delayed contralateral epidural hematoma after decompressive craniectomy for a traumatic acute subdural hematoma[J]. Formos J Surg, 2015, 48(6):222-225.
[4]
Waqas M, Bakhshi SK, Shamim MS, et al. Radiological prognostication in patients with head trauma requiring decompressive craniectomy: analysis of optic nerve sheath diameter and rotterdam CT scoring system[J]. J Neuroradiol, 2016, 43(1):25-30.
[5]
Yang CH, Li Q, Wu C, et al. Decompressive craniectomy or not: intraoperative experience in 41 patients with severe traumatic brain injury[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2012, 15(3):158-161.
[6]
Wan Y, Fei X, Shi L, et al. Methods of intra-operative treatment of cranioplasty in patients with abnormal bone window flap pressure after decompressive craniectomy[J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2016, 14(2):1537-1542.
[7]
Nasi D, Dobran M, Iacoangeli M, et al. Paradoxical brain herniation after decompressive craniectomy provoked by drainage of subdural hygroma[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 91:673.e1-e4.
[8]
Missori P, Marruzzo D, Paolini S, et al. Autologous skull bone flap sterilization after decompressive craniectomy: an update[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 90:478-483.
[9]
Honeybul S, Ho KM. Predicting long-term neurological outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury requiring decompressive craniectomy: a comparison of the CRASH and IMPACT prognostic models[J]. Injury, 2016, 47(9):1886-1892.
[10]
Borger V, Schuss P, Kinfe TM, et al. Decompressive craniectomy for stroke: early cranioplasty is a predictor for postoperative complications[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 92:83-88.
[11]
李震亮,姚冬梅,幺桂兰.去骨瓣减压术联合颞肌贴敷对脑梗死患者血清相关炎性因子及免疫功能的影响[J].中国临床研究, 2016, 29(6):788-790, 793.
[12]
Kinoshita T, Yoshiya K, Fujimoto Y, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in conjunction with evacuation of intracranial hemorrhagic lesions is associated with worse outcomes in elderly patients with traumatic brain injury: a propensity score analysis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 89:187-192.
[13]
Miller K, Eljamel S. Does size and site matter in therapeutic decompressive craniectomy? A laboratory-based experimental study[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 95:441-446.
[14]
Lammy S, Al-Romhain B, Osborne L, et al. 10-year institutional retrospective case series of decompressive craniectomy for malignant middle cerebral artery infarction(mMCAI)[J]. World Neurosurg, 2016, 96:383-389.
[15]
Jabbarli R, Oppong MD, Dammann P, et al. Time is brain! Analysis of 245 cases with decompressive craniectomy due to subarachnoid hemorrhage[J]. World Neurosurg, 2017, 98:689-694.e2
[16]
Weickenmeier J, Butler CAM, Young PG, et al. The mechanics of decompressive craniectomy: Personalized simulations[J]. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg, 2017, (314):180-195.
[1] 张馨月, 韩帅, 张舒石, 李文臣, 张舒岩. 颅内压监测技术在创伤性颅脑损伤治疗中的应用[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 246-252.
[2] 盛成俊, 沈宇晟, 李彦东, 贺诗茹, 吴徐超, 赵小玉, 曾加, 麦麦提力·米吉提, 更·党木仁加甫, 朱国华. Koos3、4级前庭神经鞘瘤在桥小脑角区的生长方向对面神经功能的影响[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 216-221.
[3] 程飞, 杨辉, 周世玲, 赵航. 静脉溶栓后机械取栓桥接治疗急性大动脉闭塞脑梗死可行性研究[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 149-153.
[4] 黄志毅, 赵娟. 重复经颅磁刺激联合分级运动想象训练对脑梗死后偏瘫患者运动功能及神经功能的影响[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 102-107.
[5] 耿一博, 刘一齐, 刘小莉, 汪阳, 顾征, 宋英伦, 李涛, 李彤, 谭可, 王雁, 杨云娜, 李锦平. 原发性脑干出血患者预后危险因素分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 85-90.
[6] 张付意, 侯现增, 汪建军, 辛涛. 有创颅内压监测靶向管控在重型颅脑损伤患者围术期应用价值分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(05): 298-301.
[7] 刘政委, 仪立志, 尹夕龙, 孔文龙, 纠智松, 张文源. 锥颅血肿外引流与神经内镜手术治疗老年基底节区高血压性脑出血的疗效分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 299-303.
[8] 马丽. CT灌注联合血管成像预测急性脑梗死患者近期神经功能预后的价值分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 229-234.
[9] 王煜泽, 高文文, 杨磊, 赵海康. 无创监测技术在脑水肿应用的研究进展[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(02): 113-117.
[10] 陈晨, 徐宏, 李政, 韩杨云. 脑室内颅内压监测在重型颅脑损伤患者围术期的应用研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(03): 146-151.
[11] 孙兵, 丁鸭锁, 尹春, 刘泽昊, 常浩. 血清Netrin-1和NSE对急性缺血性脑卒中早期神经功能恶化及预后的预测价值[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 258-263.
[12] 肖春来, 鲍根强, 张国辉, 关玉龙, 王泉, 李华. 指动脉转位在血管缺损性断指再植术中的应用及对神经和关节功能恢复的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 220-225.
[13] 姚富远, 陈芳兰, 邓哲. 非溶栓急性缺血性卒中患者早期神经功能恶化的影响因素分析[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2022, 08(04): 193-198.
[14] 朱敏, 李法强. 血清GFAP、UCH-L1联合VILIP-1水平对急性脑梗死神经功能预后不良的预测研究[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 452-457.
[15] 邱佳敏, 蒋惠怡, 陶涛. 丹参酮ⅡA治疗急性缺血性脑卒中动物模型效果的Meta分析[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 136-144.
阅读次数
全文


摘要