Effects of neuronavigation-assisted minimally invasive operation in surgical rescue to emergency neurosurgical disease

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.03.004

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the role of neuronavigation in emergency surgical rescue for traumatic neurological disease.

Methods

Sixty-eight patients received surgical treatment for critical neurological disease between May 2016 and March 2017 were included and divided into navigation group and freehand group. Their general information, category of neurological emergency, radiologic characteristics, duration of ICU and hospital stay, perioperative GCS score and prognostic GOS score were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

These 68 patients (39 males and 29 females) ranged from 19 to 71 years old. The surgery duration and the average length of ICU stay in navigation group (n=16) was shorter than that in freehand group (n=52), but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Preoperative GCS score of navigation group was higher than freehand group and there were significant statistic difference (P=0.046) between the two groups with (9.7±4.1) in navigation group and (7.3±3.5) in freehand group. However, the three-month GOS score was not of significant difference between the two groups. The rate of optimal accuracy of the ventricular draining tube was 83.3% in navigation group and 64.3% in freehand group.

Conclusion

Neuronavigation-assisted minimally invasive operation may be of help to increase the accuracy of lesion localization and ventricular penetration, and may lead to a decrease in surgery duration, especially in the cases of ventricular narrowing and hematoma in deep brain region.

Key words: Neuronavigation, Neurotarmatic, Emergency rescue, Minimally invasive surgery

Xiaobin Zheng, Fangyu Wang, Fan Chen, Zanyi Wu, Wenhua Fang, Huiqing Wang, Yuanxiang Lin, Zhangya Lin, Dezhi Kang. Effects of neuronavigation-assisted minimally invasive operation in surgical rescue to emergency neurosurgical disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurotraumatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 04(03): 143-147.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhsjcswkdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9141.2018.03.004

https://zhsjcswkdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V04/I03/143

Figures/Tables 5

References 16

[1]	Ishii M,Gallia GL. Application of technology for minimally invasive neurosurgery[J]. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2010, 21(4): 585-594.
[2]	Mezger U,Jendrewski C,Bartels M. Navigation in surgery[J]. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2013, 398(4): 501-514.
[3]	Albuquerque FC. Cerebrovascular neuronavigation: a process in evolution[J]. World Neurosurg, 2013, 79(3-4): 430.
[4]	Orringer DA,Golby A,Jolesz F. Neuronavigation in the surgical management of brain tumors: current and future trends[J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2012, 9(5): 491-500.
[5]	Kakarla UK,Kim LJ,Chang SW, et al. Safety and accuracy of bedside external ventricular drain placement[J]. Neurosurgery, 2008, 63(1 Suppl 1): ONS162-166, discussion ONS166-167.
[6]	Grunert P. From the idea to its realization: the evolution of minimally invasive techniques in neurosurgery[J]. Minim Invasive Surg, 2013, 2013: 171369.
[7]	Ganslandt O,Behari S,Gralla J, et al. Neuronavigation: concept, techniques and applications[J]. Neurol India, 2002, 50(3): 244-255.
[8]	Wu JS,Lu JF,Gong X, et al. Neuronavigation surgery in China: reality and prospects[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2012, 125(24): 4497-4503.
[9]	Chen JW,Paff MR,Abrams-Alexandru D, et al. Decreasing the cerebral edema associated with traumatic intracerebral hemorrhages: use of a minimally invasive technique[J]. Acta Neurochir Suppl, 2016, 121: 279-284.
[10]	Alazri A,Mok K,Chankowsky J, et al. Placement accuracy of external ventricular drain when comparing freehand insertion to neuronavigation guidance in severe traumatic brain injury[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2017, 159(8): 1399-1411.
[11]	Yan YF,Ru DW,Du JR, et al. The clinical efficacy of neuronavigation-assisted minimally invasive operation on hypertensive basal ganglia hemorrhage[J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2015, 19(14): 2614-2620.
[12]	崔刚,杨海峰,孙跃春,等.神经导航引导下高血压脑出血的手术治疗分析[J].中华神经外科杂志, 2015, 31(12): 1252-1254.
[13]	陈俊瑜,胡飞,岑波,等.神经导航引导下硬通道多靶点穿刺引流治疗高血压脑出血48例疗效分析[J].华中科技大学学报(医学版), 2017, 46(1): 72-75.
[14]	葛新,陈晓雷,孙吉庆,等.简易导航下神经内镜经kocher点额中回入路微创手术治疗丘脑出血破入脑室[J].中国神经精神疾病杂志, 2017, 43(3): 176-179.
[15]	阮航,段发亮,罗明,等.导航辅助内镜下手术治疗高血压性丘脑出血破入脑室[J].中国临床神经外科杂志, 2017, 22(7): 491-492.
[16]	Ozerov SS,Samarin AE,Mel'nikov AV, et al. Placement of a ventricular catheter into narrow lateral ventricles. Popular navigation[J]. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko, 2017, 81(2): 72-76.

统计指标		导航组	徒手组	t/χ²值	P值
年龄		47.5±20.4	51.2±21.6	0.607	0.546
性别（男/女）		10/6	29/23	0.223	0.634
神经创伤类型[例(%)]		?	?	?	?
?	硬膜外血肿	4(25.0)	9(17.3)	?	?
?	硬膜下血肿	2(12.5)	11(21.2)	?	?
?	脑内血肿	5(31.3)	21(40.4)	?	?
?	广泛性脑肿胀	4(25.0)	7(13.5)	?	?
?	脑室内出血	1(6.25)	4(7.7)	?	?
手术时长(min)		92.6±46.2	108.8±51.1	1.133	0.261
ICU住院时长(d)		7.6±7.1	10.3±6.6	1.406	0.164

统计指标		导航组	徒手组	t/χ²值	P值
年龄		47.5±20.4	51.2±21.6	0.607	0.546
性别（男/女）		10/6	29/23	0.223	0.634
神经创伤类型[例(%)]		?	?	?	?
?	硬膜外血肿	4(25.0)	9(17.3)	?	?
?	硬膜下血肿	2(12.5)	11(21.2)	?	?
?	脑内血肿	5(31.3)	21(40.4)	?	?
?	广泛性脑肿胀	4(25.0)	7(13.5)	?	?
?	脑室内出血	1(6.25)	4(7.7)	?	?
手术时长(min)		92.6±46.2	108.8±51.1	1.133	0.261
ICU住院时长(d)		7.6±7.1	10.3±6.6	1.406	0.164

项目		导航组	徒手组	P值
病例总数		6	14	?
神经创伤类型		?	?	?
?	广泛性脑肿胀	4(66.7)	7(50.0)	?
?	脑室内出血	1(16.7)	4(28.6)	?
?	脑内血肿破入脑室	1(16.7)	3(21.4)	?
穿刺精度		?	?	?
?	优秀	5(83.3)	9(64.3)	0.613
?	良好	1(12.5)	3(21.4)	>0.999
?	差	0(0.0)	2(14.3)	>0.999

项目		导航组	徒手组	P值
病例总数		6	14	?
神经创伤类型		?	?	?
?	广泛性脑肿胀	4(66.7)	7(50.0)	?
?	脑室内出血	1(16.7)	4(28.6)	?
?	脑内血肿破入脑室	1(16.7)	3(21.4)	?
穿刺精度		?	?	?
?	优秀	5(83.3)	9(64.3)	0.613
?	良好	1(12.5)	3(21.4)	>0.999
?	差	0(0.0)	2(14.3)	>0.999

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export