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 ›› 2025, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (03) : 160 -166. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2025.03.004

临床研究

颅内血肿清除术联合去骨瓣减压术治疗创伤性颅脑损伤患者的效果分析
方九强, 翟雨(), 杨俊峰, 沈斌   
  1. 211500 南京,南京市六合区人民医院(扬州大学六合临床医学院)神经外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-11 出版日期:2025-06-15
  • 通信作者: 翟雨

Efficacy analysis of intracranial hematoma evacuation combined with decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury patients

Jiuqiang Fang, Yu Zhai(), Junfeng Yang, Bin Shen   

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Nanjing Luhe People's Hospital (Luhe Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou University), Nanjing 211500, China
  • Received:2024-10-11 Published:2025-06-15
  • Corresponding author: Yu Zhai
引用本文:

方九强, 翟雨, 杨俊峰, 沈斌. 颅内血肿清除术联合去骨瓣减压术治疗创伤性颅脑损伤患者的效果分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(03): 160-166.

Jiuqiang Fang, Yu Zhai, Junfeng Yang, Bin Shen. Efficacy analysis of intracranial hematoma evacuation combined with decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury patients[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 11(03): 160-166.

目的

探究颅内血肿清除术联合去骨瓣减压术治疗创伤性颅脑损伤(TBI)患者的效果。

方法

回顾性分析南京市六合区人民医院神经外科自2020年1月至2024年1月收治的94例TBI患者的临床资料,将行颅内血肿清除术联合去骨瓣减压术者纳入试验组(49例),行颅内血肿清除术联合骨瓣复位术者纳入对照组(45例)。比较2组患者术后血肿清除率、颅内再出血率及并发症发生率,分析2组患者手术前后GCS评分、颅内压、凝血功能指标[凝血酶还原时间(PT)、部分活化凝血活酶时间(APTT)、D-二聚体]、血清炎症因子[C反应蛋白(CRP)、肿瘤因子(TNF-α)、白介素-6(IL-6)、降钙素原(PCT)]和血管活性因子[血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)、血管生成素-1(Ang-1)]的变化。随访3个月,比较2组患者的预后情况(GOS分级)。

结果

术后7 d,2组患者的GCS评分较术前明显升高,PT、APTT较术前均延长,颅内压、D-二聚体、CRP、TNF-α、IL-6、PCT、VEGF、Ang-1水平较术前均下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);且相较于对照组,试验组的GCS评分、血肿清除率及颅内再出血率升高,颅内压、D-二聚体、CRP、TNF-α、IL-6、PCT、VEGF及Ang-1水平降低,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者的术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访3个月,2组患者的GOS分级比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

TBI患者行颅内血肿清除术联合去骨瓣减压术能有效清除血肿,同时能优化凝血功能、抑制炎症因子并调节血管活性因子,其疗效优于颅内血肿清除术联合骨瓣复位术。

Objective

To explore the effect of intracranial hematoma evacuation combined with decompressive craniectomy in the treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients.

Methods

The clinical data of 94 patients with TBI in Neurosurgery Department of Nanjing Luhe People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed from January 2020 to January 2024. The patients who underwent intracranial hematoma evacuation and decompressive craniectomy were included in experimental group (49 cases), while those who underwent intracranial hematoma evacuation and bone flap reduction were included in control group (45 cases). The postoperative hematoma clearance rate, intracranial rebleeding rate, and incidence of complications were compared between two groups of patients. The changes in preoperative and postoperative GCS scores, intracranial pressure levels, coagulation function indicators [prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), D-dimer], serum inflammatory factors [C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT)], and vasoactive factors [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), angiogenin-1 (Ang-1)] were analyzed. The patients were followed up for 3 months, and the prognosis (GOS grading) of two groups of patients was compared.

Results

At 7 d after surgery, the GCS score in both groups was significantly enhanced than that before surgery; While PT and APTT were extended, intracranial pressure, D-dimer, CRP, TNF-α, IL-6, PCT, VEGF and Ang-1 were decreased than before surgery (P<0.05). The GCS score, the hematoma clearance rate, and the intracranial rebleeding rate in experimental group was higher than that in control group while the intracranial pressure, D-dimer, CRP, TNF-α, IL-6, PCT, VEGF and Ang-1 were lower than that in control group (P<0.05). There were no obvious differences in the incidence rates of complications between two groups (P>0.05). After 3 months of follow-up, there was no obvious difference in GOS grading between both groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions

For patients with TBI, intracranial hematoma evacuation combined with decompressive craniectomy can not only effectively removes the hematoma, but also optimize coagulation function, inhibit inflammatory factors, and regulate vascular active factors. Its therapeutic efficacy is superior to that of intracranial hematoma evacuation and bone flap reduction.

表1 2组TBI患者的基线资料比较
Tab.1 Comparison of baseline data between two groups of TBI patients
表2 2组TBI患者的病情缓解情况比较
Tab.2 Comparison of disease remission between two groups of TBI patients
表3 2组TBI患者术后并发症发生率比较
Tab.3 Comparison of postoperative complication rates between two groups of TBI patients
表4 2组TBI患者手术前后凝血功能比较(±s
Tab.4 Comparison of coagulation function between two groups of TBI patients before and after surgery (Mean±SD)
表5 2组TBI患者手术前后血清炎症因子水平比较
Tab.5 Comparison of serum inflammatory factors levels before and after surgery in two groups of TBI patients
表6 2组TBI患者手术前后血管活性因子水平比较(±s
Tab.6 Comparison of vasoactive factors levels before and after surgery in two groups of TBI patients (Mean±SD)
表7 2组TBI患者COS分级比较[例(%)]
Tab.7 Comparison of COS grading between the two groups of TBI patients [n (%)]
[1]
王霞,粱育磊,沈杰,等.重型颅脑损伤术后脑膨出的风险预测模型构建[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(6): 359-366. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2024.06.007.
[2]
杜敬华,刘国军,王位坐.腰大池持续引流联合标准骨瓣减压治疗重型颅脑损伤的应用效果[J].四川大学学报(医学版), 2023, 54(5): 1040-1045. DOI: 10.12182/20230960203.
[3]
胡志恒,任洪波,宋志远,等.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].中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(4): 201-207. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-123X.2024.04.002.
[4]
申皓宇,黄子芮,梁文佳,等.颅内压监测在颅脑创伤去骨瓣减压术中的作用[J].中华神经外科杂志, 2024, 40(6): 581-585. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112050-20231116-00172.
[5]
王婷婷,蔺洁璐,李静,等.上肢康复机器人联合VR训练对重症颅脑损伤术后干预效果及对日常行为的中介效应研究[J].机器人外科学杂志(中英文), 2024, 5(6): 1142-1148. DOI: 10.12180/j.issn.2096-7721.2024.06.023.
[6]
王东,张金峰,屈浙,等.动态颅内压监测下阶梯式减压策略在外伤性颅脑损伤去骨瓣减压术中的效果[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志, 2023, 26(7): 853-859. DOI: 10.12083/SYSJ.230243.
[7]
中国医师协会神经外科医师分会,中国神经创伤专家委员会.中国颅脑创伤外科手术指南[J].中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2015, 1(1): 59-60. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2015.01.018.
[8]
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: A practical scale[J]. Lancet, 1974, 2(7872): 81-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0.
[9]
顾永,任艳明,杨朝华,等.去骨瓣减压术在重型颅脑损伤中的应用进展[J].西部医学, 2022, 34(6): 932-936,封3. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2022.06.031.
[10]
李奕秋,沈冠豪,沈绍星,等.实时CT定位下脑内血肿清除术对脑出血患者预后及神经功能的影响[J].海军医学杂志, 2020, 41(4): 457-460. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0754.2020.04.036.
[11]
张华军,齐文涛,段晓春,等.眶上外侧入路联合颅内压监测治疗破裂颅内动脉瘤效果评价[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志, 2023, 26(9): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.12083/SYSJ.230407.
[12]
张明,葛继晖,韩冰,等.颅内压相关参数在大面积脑梗死去骨瓣减压术后的临床应用[J].中华实验外科杂志, 2024, 41(5): 1058-1063. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn421213-20240226-00207.
[13]
刘俊,黄贤键,高杰,等. Seldinger技术在开颅去骨瓣减压术后皮下积液治疗中的应用[J].中国微创外科杂志, 2022, 22(6): 523-525. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2022.06.018.
[14]
王明国,党帅,闫禹.改良去骨瓣减压术处理创伤性脑损伤的有效性和安全性及对炎性介质水平与预后的影响[J].解放军医学杂志, 2023, 48(11): 1338-1343. DOI: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.1509.2023.0525.
[15]
蒙斯雅,李梅,李微.构建Logistic回归预测模型分析颅脑损伤患者并发凝血功能障碍的影响因素[J].中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志, 2023, 18(3): 320-324. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6966.2023.03.012.
[16]
刘帅,任洁,郭晓燕,等. TEG检测对颅脑损伤患者凝血功能及短期预后的应用价值探讨[J].检验医学与临床, 2022, 19(1): 102-104. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2022.01.027.
[17]
王武,程大鹏,郭锐.急性单发性创伤性颅脑损伤术后TNF-α、LPS、IL-6、PAF、PLA2及凝血功能水平与肝功能异常的相关性[J].临床和实验医学杂志, 2023, 22(23): 2477-2481. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4695.2023.23.004.
[18]
罗刚,叶庆遥,彭景,等.丙泊酚靶控输注联合右美托咪定对颅脑外伤颅内血肿清除术患者血清炎症因子和脑损伤指标的影响[J].现代生物医学进展, 2024, 24(3): 507-511. DOI: 10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2024.03.020.
[19]
高强,孙峻峰,张永斌.血清PCT、HMGB1、CRP/ALB预测颅脑损伤术后肺部感染的价值[J].检验医学与临床, 2023, 20(10): 1401-1404, 1409. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2023.10.013.
[20]
隋曌,严小虎,李英.超早期小骨窗微创血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血效果及对血清血管内皮生长因子、血管生成素1和炎性因子影响[J].临床误诊误治, 2020, 33(2): 85-89. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3429.2020.02.019.
[21]
张丽辉,李毓新,惠晶,等.鼠神经生长因子联合神经节苷脂钠注射液对癫痫大鼠认知功能、血清NSE及海马神经元的影响及机制分析[J].现代生物医学进展, 2023, 23(8): 1442-1446. DOI: 10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2023.08.008.
[22]
申雅洁,阴怀清,曹芳芳,等.依达拉奉注射液对高胆红素血症脑损伤新生大鼠血清S100B蛋白水平的影响[J].中西医结合心脑血管病杂志, 2017, 15(17): 2116-2119. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1349.2017.17.009.
[23]
孙思辉,杨安强,贺杰.颅脑损伤患者血浆suPAR、凝血功能及血清钠离子水平与其病情、预后的关系[J].西部医学, 2023, 35(6): 885-888. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2023.06.019.
[1] 向征鸿, 施春晓, 何春梅, 王禧庆, 何磊. 全血粘弹性凝血功能监测技术对于川崎病患儿凝血功能检测的临床价值[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 21(03): 337-343.
[2] 刘羽阳, 封亚平. 靶向创伤性颅脑损伤神经炎症的药物治疗研究进展[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(03): 137-143.
[3] 马行远, 孙洪涛, 王景景, 任党利, 李泽萌, 丁晓, 张宇航, 邓廷桢, 陈月阳, 王淑莹, 杨以太, 王贺孔, 郑茂华. GRP75在创伤性颅脑损伤所致神经炎症中的机制研究[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 75-85.
[4] 郭瑶, 吕伟, 肖爵贤, 吴利东, 程祖珏. 创伤性颅脑损伤后MOG抗体相关性脱髓鞘疾病二例报道并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2025, 11(01): 62-65.
[5] 熊伟, 杨华, 肖现, 黄仁强, 卢昆, 王松青. 炎症反应与创伤性脊髓损伤严重程度及神经功能改善的相关性[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 330-339.
[6] 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.
[7] 李刚, 潘晓帆, 田雪, 刘路路. CT灌注成像参数及血栓弹力图对急性前循环脑梗死早期神经功能恶化的预测价值分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 226-232.
[8] 张丽娜, 谌楚宇, 杨新宇, 邱海波, 吕奔. 脓毒症凝血功能障碍:2024 年度进展与展望[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 105-111.
[9] 苗勇男, 马晓春, 李旭. 血液黏弹性检测在重症患者凝血功能评价中的作用[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 193-197.
[10] 曾坚锋, 李钢, 刘成业, 王辉. 神经内镜微创手术治疗高血压脑出血的临床效果分析[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(01): 26-30.
[11] 高晶, 张琳, 申鑫. AIMS65、Child-Pugh和MELD评分系统联合凝血功能指标对肝硬化并发慢加急性肝衰竭的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(04): 352-358.
[12] 刘麒, 陈萍, 曹筱璇, 周梅, 张斌强, 朱文博. 幽门螺杆菌感染对帕金森病患者疾病进展及外周炎症因子、凝血功能指标特征的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(03): 262-266.
[13] 吴仔弦, 杨思敏, 周保纯. 定量脑电图在成人重症监护室中的应用[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 616-620.
[14] 李小勇, 郭海志, 赵洋. QSM 联合SWI 预测急性缺血性脑卒中患者EVT 后神经功能的价值[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 549-555.
[15] 王育伟, 杨琼, 丁文华, 邱景景, 耿玉荣. 脑小血管病排尿障碍研究进展及机制探讨[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 606-610.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?