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 ›› 2024, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (01) : 35 -41. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2024.01.006

临床研究

不同时机颅骨修补术治疗颅脑外伤的临床疗效
袁宝玉1, 管义祥2, 王东流1, 陆正1,()   
  1. 1. 226600 江苏南通,海安市人民医院创伤外科
    2. 226600 江苏南通,海安市人民医院神经外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-03-21 出版日期:2024-02-15
  • 通信作者: 陆正

Clinical efficacy of skull repair surgery at different timing in the treatment of craniocerebral trauma

Baoyu Yuan1, Yixiang Guan2, Dongliu Wang1, Zheng Lu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Trauma Surgery, Hai’an People’s Hospital, Nantong 226600, China
    2. Department of Neurosurgery, Hai’an People’s Hospital, Nantong 226600, China
  • Received:2023-03-21 Published:2024-02-15
  • Corresponding author: Zheng Lu
  • Supported by:
    Research Project of Jiangsu Provincial Health Commission(Z2019033)
引用本文:

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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 35-41.

Baoyu Yuan, Yixiang Guan, Dongliu Wang, Zheng Lu. Clinical efficacy of skull repair surgery at different timing in the treatment of craniocerebral trauma[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(01): 35-41.

目的

比较不同时机颅骨修补术治疗颅脑外伤患者的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性收集海安市人民医院神经外科自2016年1月至2021年8月收治的89例颅脑外伤患者,根据颅骨缺损修补术距离大骨瓣减压术的时间分为早期组(<3个月,22例)、中期组(3~6个月,47例)和晚期组(>6个月,20例)。比较3组患者术前3 d及术后3个月双侧大脑后动脉(PCA)、大脑中动脉(MCA)的平均血流速度、Karnofsky功能状态(KPS)评分、功能独立性量表(FIM)评分、美国国立卫生院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、GOS评分。比较3组患者术前1 d和术后1周的颅内压以及术后并发症(颅内感染、癫痫和颅内水肿)发生率。

结果

早期组PCA和MCA平均血流速度术后较术前有明显改善,明显高于中期组和晚期组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患者术后KPS评分、FIM评分较术前均有明显改善,早期组术后KPS评分、FIM评分、GOS评分明显高于中期组和晚期组,NIHSS评分明显低于中期组和晚期组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患者术后颅内压较术前均有明显改善,早期组术后颅内压明显高于中期组和晚期组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患者并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

早期行颅骨修补治疗对于颅脑外伤患者具有较好的疗效,且可有效改善脑血流,升高颅内压,改善预后。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of cranioplasty in patients with craniocerebral trauma at different times.

Methods

Eighty-nine patients with craniocerebral trauma admitted to our hospital from January 2016 to August 2021 were retrospectively collected and divided into early group (less than 3 months) (n=22), intermediate group (3-6 months) (n=47) and late group (greater than 6 months) (n=20) according to the time of skull defect repair from large bone flap decompression. The mean blood flow velocity of bilateral posterior cerebral artery (PCA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA), karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, function independent measure (FIM) score, National Institute of Health stroke score (NIHSS), GOS score were compared among the 3 groups 3 d before and 3 months after surgery. The intracranial pressure in the 3 groups 1 d before and 1 week after surgery, and the incidence of postoperative complications such as intracranial infection, epilepsy, and intracranial edema were compared.

Results

The mean blood flow velocity of PCA and MCA in the early group was significantly improved after operation, which was significantly higher than that in the intermediate and late groups (P<0.05). The KPS score and FIM score of the 3 groups were significantly improved after operation, and the KPS score, FIM score and GOS score of the early group were significantly higher than those of the intermediate and late groups, but the NIHSS score was significantly lower than that of the intermediate and late groups (P<0.05). The postoperative intracranial pressure of the 3 groups was significantly improved after operation, and the intracranial pressure of the early group was significantly higher than that of the intermediate and late groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications among the 3 groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Early skull repair treatment has a good effect on patients with craniocerebral trauma, increase intracranial pressure, and improve prognosis.

表1 3组患者的一般资料比较
Tab.1 Comparison of general information among three groups
表2 3组患者术前术后血流动力学比较(cm/s,±s
Tab.2 Comparison of preoperative and postoperative hemodynamics among three groups (cm/s, Mean±SD)
表3 3组患者术前术后临床评分比较(分,±s
Tab.3 Comparison of preoperative and postoperative clinical scores among three groups (score, ±s)
表4 3组患者术前术后颅内压比较(mmH2O,±s
Tab.4 Comparison of intracranial pressure among three groups (mmH2O, Mean±SD)
表5 3组患者术后并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
Tab.5 Comparison of postoperative complication rates among three groups [n (%)]
[1]
王云宏.标准去大骨瓣减压术结合阶梯式减压治疗危重颅脑外伤的效果分析[J].中国实用医药, 2021, 16(14): 40-42. DOI: 10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2021.14.012.
[2]
郭效东,路小奇,王振华,等.颅骨缺损患者颅骨修补术后癫痫发作的危险因素分析[J].中华神经外科杂志, 2020, 36(4): 370-374. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112050-20190917-00401.
[3]
成睿,吉磊,李豪,等.新缝合悬吊法在颅骨缺损修补术的应用[J].中国微侵袭神经外科杂志, 2020, 25(8): 362-363. DOI: 10.11850/j.issn.1009-122X.2020.08.009.
[4]
杨昌立,王铁峰,陈茗伟,等.颅脑损伤去骨瓣减压行颅骨修补术后继发硬膜外积液原因及治疗策略[J].海南医学, 2021, 32(19): 2543-2545. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6350.2021.19.025.
[5]
黄先锋,林小祥,李剑侠.重型颅脑损伤病人去骨瓣减压术后早期行颅骨修补的疗效及脑血流动力学变化[J].临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(10): 919-924. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2021.10.007.
[6]
林晓宁,田新华,童俊江,等.早期颅骨修补对成人颅脑外伤患者预后的影响[J].中华神经外科杂志, 2020, 36(1): 69-72. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-2346.2020.01.017.
[7]
岑庆君,赵昆玉,黎海滨,等.颅脑损伤后行早期颅骨修补术与癫痫发作的相关性[J].广东医学, 2020, 41(14): 1485-1488. DOI: 10.13820/j.cnki.gdyx.20202354.
[8]
马涛,郭少春,陈磊,等.血栓弹力图对单纯颅脑损伤急性期凝血功能障碍的诊断价值[J].检验医学与临床, 2020, 17(24): 3618-3621. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2020.24.018.
[9]
郭西良,钱锋,马奎,等.穿梭缝合硬脑膜悬吊法在颅骨修补术中的应用[J].中国微侵袭神经外科杂志, 2014, 19(6): 269-270. DOI: 10.11850/j.issn.1009-122X.2014.06.012.
[10]
Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines[J]. J Clin Oncol, 1984, 2(3): 187-193. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1984.2.3.187.
[11]
王新,曲镭,戴红.功能独立性评定(FIM)的特性及临床应用[J].中华物理医学与康复杂志, 1997, 19(4): 239-242. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1424.1997.04.119.
[12]
McCarthy DJ, Tonetti DA, Stone J, et al. More expansive horizons: a review of endovascular therapy for patients with low NIHSS scores[J]. J Neurointerv Surg, 2021, 13(2): 146-151. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016583.
[13]
Yuan T, He H, Liu Y, et al. Association between blood glucose levels and Glasgow Outcome Score in patients with traumatic brain injury: secondary analysis of a randomized trial[J]. Trials, 2022, 23(1): 38. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06005-5.
[14]
于永太,王建军,孙炜.颅骨修补术后脑血流动力学变化与临床表现的相关性研究进展[J].中国康复理论与实践, 2019, 25(7): 797-800. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2019.07.011.
[15]
路伟.早期修补术、VPS手术结合治疗严重颅脑损伤术后患者颅骨缺损并脑积水的临床效果及并发症发生情况分析[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志, 2018, 26(z1): 72-73. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-5971.2018.z1.032.
[16]
何征晖,惠纪元,冯军峰,等.创伤性脑损伤去骨瓣术后聚醚醚酮颅骨修补的疗效[J].中华创伤杂志, 2022, 38(4): 6-10. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501098-20211201-00624.
[17]
李红建,李莉,刘晶声,等.高压氧治疗颅脑损伤大面积去骨瓣患者颅内水肿加重4例[J].中华航海医学与高气压医学杂志, 2022, 29(1): 134-135. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn311847-20210419-00119.
[18]
Wang K, Guo H, Zhu Y, et al. Improved strategy for post-traumatic hydrocephalus following decompressive craniectomy: Experience of a single center[J]. Front Surg, 2023, 9: 935171. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.935171.
[19]
Maegele M, Lefering R, Sakowitz O, et al. The incidence and management of moderate to severe head injury[J]. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2019, 116(10): 167-173. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0167.
[20]
王坤,李冰,赵鹏,等.标准大骨瓣减压术后不同时期行颅骨修补术的疗效及并发症观察[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2018, 4(2): 77-81. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.02.004.
[21]
程月飞,王志明,王洪生,等.早期颅骨修补治疗颅脑损伤大骨瓣减压术后顽固性硬膜下积液[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2019, 5(5): 307-309. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2019.05.012.
[22]
徐福林,王建清,虞剑,等.去铁胺对老年颅脑损伤病人脑内血肿和水肿的促吸收作用[J].中国微侵袭神经外科杂志, 2019, 24(1): 5-8. DOI: 10.11850/j.issn.1009-122X.2019.01.002.
[23]
侯立军.颅脑创伤及其合并伤的基础与临床研究[J].中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2019, 9(5): 319-320. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-123X.2019.05.016.
[24]
中国医师协会神经损伤培训委员会,中华医学会神经外科分会颅脑创伤学组,中国医师协会神经修复学专业委员会颅脑创伤修复学组.中国成人重型颅脑损伤大骨瓣开颅手术标准技术专家共识[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2020, 6(2): 68-75. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2020.02.002.
[25]
汤宏,张永明,许少年,等.颅骨修补术后并发症的临床分析及治疗策略(附158例报道)[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2017, 3(1): 17-20. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2017.01.005.
[1] 张华, 孙宇, 乡世健, 李樱媚, 王小群. 循环肿瘤细胞预测晚期胃肠癌患者化疗药物敏感性的研究[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 422-425.
[2] 钟文涛, 吕远, 孙亮, 袁强, 聂玉辉, 东星, 陈光, 陈纲, 杜峻峰. 腹腔镜-胃镜联合手术与开腹手术处理胃间质瘤的临床疗效对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 164-166.
[3] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 16-21.
[4] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 22-27.
[5] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(01): 28-34.
[6] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 338-342.
[7] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 350-354.
[8] 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]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 355-359.
[9] 张卓媛, 杨二万, 田志成, 包明冬, 罗鹏. 慢性创伤性脑病的研究新进展[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 360-366.
[10] 唐春雨, 李倩, 郭姗姗, 叶奇, 张丹. 创伤性颅脑损伤神经生理学特征[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 367-371.
[11] 王晓静, 林家汉, 周桔丰, 李晨翠. 不同时机营养支持在改善重型颅脑损伤患者营养状态及免疫功能中的应用[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 335-339.
[12] 刘萍, 刘占举, 张萃. 英夫利西单抗治疗克罗恩病的临床疗效及影响因素[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(01): 28-34.
[13] 葛雪梅. SOX与mFOLFOX6化疗方案对晚期胃癌的疗效与安全性[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(01): 67-71.
[14] 梁文龙, 曹杰, 黄庆, 林泳, 黄红丽, 杨平, 李冠炜, 胡鹤. 信迪利单抗联合瑞戈非尼治疗晚期结直肠癌的疗效与安全性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 409-413.
[15] 姜里蛟, 张峰, 周玉萍. 多学科诊疗模式救治老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道大出血患者的临床观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 520-524.
阅读次数
全文


摘要