双侧去骨瓣减压开颅术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤效果观察

目的分析双侧去骨瓣减压开颅术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤的效果。方法随机将73例重型对冲性颅脑损伤患者分为2组。观察组(37例)采用双侧去骨瓣减压开颅术,对照组(36例)采用单侧去骨瓣减压开颅术。比较2组的治疗效果。结果观察组总有效率、术后GCS评分及并发症发生率均优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论双侧去骨瓣减压开颅术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤,能有效改善患者的意识状态,并发症发生率低,效果显著。     

标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗重型颅脑损效果观察

目的分析标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的临床效果。方法将64例重型颅脑损伤患者随机分为2组,各32例。对照组实施常规骨瓣开颅减压手术,观察组给予标准大骨瓣开颅减压手术。观察2组的治疗临床效果及术后并发症情况。结果观察组治愈率高于常规组,并发症发生率明显低于常规组,差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与常规骨瓣开颅减压手术相比,对重型颅脑损伤患者实施标准大骨瓣开颅减压术,治愈率高、术后并发症发生率低,可明显改善预后。     

标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的体会

目的评价标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院98例重型颅脑损伤患者的临床资料和治疗情况,其中42例采用传统的开颅减压手术治疗的患者作为对照组,另56例采用标准大骨瓣开颅减压治疗的重型颅脑损伤患者作为观察组。两组患者治疗结束后,随访观察半年。结果观察组的治愈率为35.71%,死亡率为3.57%,并发症发生率为21.43%,观察组临床效果明显好于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论应用标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤可显著降低患者的死亡率、致残率及并发症率、缩短平均住院时间、减少住院费用等优点,但不能盲目推广应用,应严格把握其手术适应证。     

双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗41例急性颅脑损伤患者的效果分析

目的探讨双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗急性颅脑损伤的效果。方法选取郏县人民医院收治的82例急性颅脑损伤患者,根据不同治疗方案分为2组,各41例。对照组采取改良大骨瓣开颅减压术,观察组采取双侧去骨瓣减压术。结果术后第1天、3天、5天,2组的颅内压均较术前降低,但观察组显著低于对照组;观察组预后良好率高于对照组。差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗急性颅脑损伤,可有效降低颅内压和改善预后效果。     

标准大骨瓣开颅术治疗重型颅脑损伤效果观察

目的探讨标准大骨瓣开颅术治疗重型颅脑损伤的效果。方法随机将84例重型颅脑损伤患者分为2组,每组42例。对照组实施常规骨瓣开颅术,观察组行标准大骨瓣开颅术。比较分析2组手术前后颅内压水平、并发症发生率及预后效果。结果 2组术后7 d颅内压水平较术前均有明显改善。观察组改善情况优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组并发症发生率、病死率、植物生存率低于对照组,预后良好率高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论标准大骨瓣开颅术治疗重型颅脑损伤,可有效改善患者的颅内高压,并发症少,病死率低和生活质量高。     

双侧去骨瓣减压手术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤82例临床分析

目的分析双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤的效果。方法选取2016-12—2018-12间西平县人民医院收治的82例重型对冲性颅脑损伤患者,依据不同手术方案分为2组,各41例。在常规治疗的基础上,对照组行单侧大骨瓣减压术,观察组行双侧去骨瓣减压术。比较2组并发症及术后3个月的手术优良率。结果观察组脑膨出、颅内感染、脑脊液漏、再出血等并发症发生率低于对照组,术后3个月的手术优良率高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤,并发症发生率低,手术优良率高。     

标准大骨瓣减压术治疗重型颅脑创伤临床分析

目的探讨标准大骨瓣与常规颞顶瓣开颅术治疗重型颅脑创伤的效果。方法选取2016-01—2016-12间收治的60例重型颅脑损伤患者,随机分为2组,各30例。对照组采用常规颞顶瓣或联合开颅手术,观察组采用标准大骨瓣开颅手术。比较2组的临床效果。结果观察组患者预后良好率高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论标准大骨瓣减压术可提高颅脑损伤患者的治疗效果。     

标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗创伤后脑肿胀23例

目的总结标准大骨瓣开颅减压术治疗创伤后脑肿胀的治疗经验。方法治疗组23例采用美国标准大骨瓣开颅并去大骨瓣减压术治疗,骨窗大小为(6~8)cm×(10~12)cm;对照组31例采用传统的开颅术及减压骨窗,骨窗大小均在6 cm×8 cm以下。结果治疗组病死率8.70%,致残率26.09%;对照组病死率38.71%,致残率25.81%。治疗组术后平均清醒时间比对照组缩短(P0.05),病死率与对照组比较差异有显著性。(P0.05),致残率与对照组比较无显著差异(P0.05)。结论尽管大骨瓣减压术目前尚有争议,但是它仍是创伤后颅内高压治疗的一个重要方法 ,能缩短术后清醒时间,降低病死率。     

双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗31例重型对冲性颅脑损伤效果观察

目的观察双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤的效果。方法随机将62例重型对冲性颅脑损伤患者分为2组,各31例。对照组采取单侧去骨瓣减压术,观察组采取双侧去骨瓣减压术。结果观察组恢复良好率高于对照组,重度残疾率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后第1天观察组颅内压低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05),但2组GOS评分差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后第7天观察组颅内压低于对照组,GOS评分高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论双侧去骨瓣减压术治疗重型对冲性颅脑损伤,能有效降低颅内压,改善预后,效果显著。     

标准大骨瓣减压术对重型颅脑损伤患者脑代谢指标的影响

目的探讨标准大骨瓣减压术对重型颅脑损伤患者脑代谢指标的影响。方法随机将60例重型颅脑损伤患者分为2组,各30例。对照组采用传统骨瓣开颅术,观察组采用标准大骨瓣减压术。比较2组患者的脑氧摄取率(CEO_2)、脑灌注压(CCP)、静脉血氧饱和度(SVO_2)等脑代谢指标及格拉斯哥(GCS)评分。结果观察组患者的CEO_2、CCP、SVO_2水平及GCS评分均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与传统骨瓣开颅术比较,标准大骨瓣减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤,可有效改善患者的脑代谢指标和预后。     

颅脑损伤患者Rotterdam评分与术后挫伤性脑出血扩大的相关研究

目的探讨重型颅脑损伤患者Rotterdam头颅CT评分与去骨瓣减压术后挫伤性脑出血扩大的关系,明确挫伤性脑出血增加量与预后的关系。方法 212例行单侧去骨瓣减压术的颅脑损伤患者进入研究,记录年龄,GCS评分,瞳孔,实验室检查和最初的、术前最近的、术后首次的头颅CT数据。预后指标:外伤后6个月GOS评分。结果最初头颅CT的Rotterdam评分与去骨瓣减压术后的挫伤性脑出血是否扩大及血肿增加量相关。Rotterdam评分与死亡率和预后相关。去骨瓣减压术后挫伤性脑出血增加量与死亡率和预后相关。结论重型颅脑损伤患者最初的Rotterdam头颅CT评分可以预测去骨瓣减压术后脑挫伤出血扩大的风险,且与预后相关。     

Decompressive craniectomy for the management of patients with refractory hypertension: should it be reconsidered?

Summary. Summary.   Introduction: The management of refractory post-traumatic cerebral oedema remains a frustrating endeavor for the neurosurgeon and the intensivist. Mortality and morbidity rates remain high, despite refinements in medical and pharmacological means of controlling intracranial hypertension.   Method and Material: In this retrospective study we have evaluated the efficacy of decompressive craniectomy as a last resort therapy, from the data of nine patients with severe brain injury and delayed cerebral oedema (diffuse injury type III), treated between January 1997 and September 1999. The following parameters were considered: age, Glascow Coma Scale, injury severity, intracranial pressure, CT findings, pupil reaction/posturing. Follow-up period was over at least 2 years and outcome measured on the GOS.   Results: Patients have been operated on post-trauma median day 3, mean age 26±9, GCS 7±3.7, mean APACHE II 16±6.4, mean ISS 27.8±16.1, mean preoperative ICP 37.7±10.0, mean postoperative ICP 18.1±16.01. Seven patients have been operated by a frontotemporoparietal approach (six of them bilateral, one unilateral) and two patients have been operated on by a bilateral subtemporal approach. Mortality rates 22%, severe disability 11%, good recovery 66%.   Discussion: Patients with STBI, developing delayed intracranial hypertension caused by diffuse cerebral oedema, definitely benefit from craniectomy when current medical treatment has failed. The encouraging results of outcome in this and more recent studies, indicate the need for a multi-institutional randomized prospective study evaluating early indicators of raised ICP, timing, efficacy of treatment, operative technique and complications of decompressive craniectomy. Published online August 12, 2002     

双侧椎板间开窗治疗稳定型腰椎管狭窄症

目的探讨双侧椎板间开窗治疗稳定型腰椎管狭窄症的方法、适应证和疗效。方法83例稳定型腰椎管狭窄症患者,均行双侧椎板间开窗治疗。结果76例平均随访1．5（0．5—6）年。疗效采用Nakai评分标准：优59例,良11例,可5例,差1例;优良率92．1％。1例因多节段双侧椎板间开窗导致医源性腰椎失稳行二次手术。结论双侧椎板间开窗法是治疗稳定型腰椎管狭窄症较理想的治疗方法。     

不同时机行去骨瓣减压加颞肌粘贴术治疗急性大脑中动脉区梗死效果的比较

目的探讨不同手术时机去骨瓣减压加颞肌粘贴术对急性大脑中动脉系脑梗死的疗效。方法对25例急性大脑中动脉脑梗死病人行开颅去骨瓣减压、加带血管蒂颞肌肌瓣粘附术，并观察不同手术时机的治疗效果。结果25例病例中生存18例，死亡7例，死亡率28％。早期手术组14例死亡2例。死亡率为14．3％：晚期手术组11例死亡5例，死亡率为45．5％；早期手术明显降低了死亡率（P〈0．01）。生存者术后半年Barthel Index评分早期手术组明显优于晚期手术组（P〈0.05）。结论对于急性大脑中动脉脑梗死，早期行开颅去骨瓣减压、加带血管蒂颞肌肌瓣粘附术，可迅速缓解颅内高压、促进神经功能恢复、减少死亡率．并能改善生存质量。     

去骨瓣减压对外伤性脑血管痉挛状态影响的研究

目的 通过对去骨瓣减压术后患者情况综合研究外伤性脑血管痉挛（CVS）的危险因素. 方法 对本院2010年3月至2011年3月收治的30例幕上急性硬膜外血肿合并外伤性蛛网膜下腔出血的脑疝患者,首先予经颅多普勒超声（TCD）检测,并予脑室穿刺行颅内压动态监测,再行去骨瓣减压术,术后连续7天行TCD及颅内压监测并作相关数据分析. 结果 18例发生CVS（占60％）,脑中线结构钟摆程度≥2cm的CVS发生率显著高于脑中线结构钟摆程度＜2cm;t-SAH积血Hijdra法计算6分以下20例中有9例（45％）、6以上10例中有9例（90％）发生CVS;脑疝至手术处理时间2小时以上3例中有3例（100％）、2小时以下27例中有15例（55.6％）发生CVS;手术进行硬膜下探查19例中有8例（50％）、未探查11例中有10例（90.9％）发生CVS;年龄＞50岁18例中有6例（33.3％）、＜50岁12例（40％）中有12例（100％）发生CVS. 结论 经血肿清除及去骨瓣减压术后的患者所发生的脑血管痉挛情况与患者术前术后脑中线结构钟摆程度、蛛网膜下腔出血量、脑疝至手术处理时间的长短、是否进行硬膜下探查、年龄等情况有关.     

急性重度颅脑外伤伴天幕裂孔疝的手术治疗

目的比较标准外伤大骨瓣开颅血肿清除去大骨瓣减压并天幕裂孔疝复位术与常规大骨瓣开颅血肿清除去大骨瓣减压术对急性重度颅脑损伤伴天幕裂孔疝的治疗效果。方法 40例急性重度颅脑伤伴天幕裂孔疝患者(GCS≤8分)随机分为两组,每组20例。研究组采用标准外伤大骨瓣开颅血肿清除去大骨瓣减压并脑疝腹位术,对照组采用常规大骨瓣开颅血肿清除大骨瓣减压术。术后1 d、3 d、7 d对两组GCS评分、颅内压、脑水肿范围和中线结构移位等指标进行比较。结果术后3 d、7 d研究组较对照组的GCS评分、颅内压、脑水肿范围和中线结构移位等指标有显著改善(P0.01)。术后1年随访,研究组和对照组生存率分别为85%和60%,重残及死亡率分别为25%和50%,组间比较有显著差异(P0.05或P0.01)。结论标准外伤大骨瓣开颅血肿清除去大骨瓣减压并天幕裂孔疝复位术能提高患者生存率,减少死残率,是手术治疗重度颅脑外伤伴天幕裂孔疝的有效方法。     

神经补片在去骨瓣减压术中的作用

目的探讨神经补片在去骨瓣减压术中的作用。方法回顾性研究,治疗组的78例患者在标准去骨瓣减压时使用神经补片修补硬脑膜,对照组的36例患者在标准去骨瓣减压时使用自体筋膜修补硬脑膜。术后对比两组患者的癫痫发生率;在二期的修补治疗中对比两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量及硬脑膜破损率。结果治疗组和对照组的癫痫发生率分别为6.4%和22.2%,差异显著(χ2=6.095,P=0.014),在二期的颅骨缺损修补中,治疗组和对照组的手术时间分别为(121.9±18.6)min vs.(156.1±14.6)min,出血量分别为(108.1±42.3)ml vs.(181.9±46.5)ml,硬脑膜破损率为3.8%vs.25%;差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论在标准去骨瓣减压时使用神经补片修补硬脑膜能降低患者术后的癫痫发生率,同时有利于患者二期进行的颅骨缺损修补手术,能减少修补手术中的出血量及手术时间,减少副损伤。     

外伤性脑梗塞的临床治疗体会(附51例报告)

【摘要】〓目的〓探讨外伤性脑梗塞临床特点及预防、治疗方法。方法〓回顾分析51例外伤性脑梗塞患者的诊断、治疗方法及结果。结果〓34例患者行开颅血肿清除、挫裂伤病灶清除,其中22例患者行去骨瓣减压术,12例患者行内减压术。7例患者进行再次开颅清除血肿清除、减压术,死亡7例。全部诊断外伤性脑梗塞的患者均予扩容、改善循环、解痉、高压氧、激素及降低颅内压等治疗;明显蛛网膜下腔出血的患者予多次腰穿或腰大池持续引流等处理。随访2年,按GOS分级判断预后,良好22例,中残9例,重残7例,植物生存6例。结论〓颅脑外伤治疗过程中应注意外伤性脑梗塞发生和发展,早期诊断及治疗可能有利于降低脑梗患者的致残率。     

The influence of large decompressive craniectomy on the outcome of surgical treatment in spontaneous intracerebral haematomas

Summary The outcome of a series of 73 patients with spontaneous intraparenchymatous haematomas treated by surgical evacuation of the clot and decompressive craniectomy has been described.Comparing postoperative mortality of this series with another series of patients (54 cases) treated only with surgical removal of the clot without decompressive craniectomy a statistically significant improvement in the mortality rate after craniectomy could be observed in acute cases demanding surgical intervention for preservation of life in the first 24 hours.If signs of brain-stem suffering appear surgical mortality increases proportionally to the duration of this symptomatology. In these cases surgery, if it is to be useful, has to be performed as soon as possible.The morbidity of the surviving patients is not greater in this series with decompressive craniectomy than in series without decompression.     

Comparison of the effect of decompressive craniectomy on different neurosurgical diseases

Background  Many previous studies have reported that decompressive craniectomy has improved clinical outcomes in patients with intractable increased intracranial pressure (ICP) caused by various neurosurgical diseases. However there is no report that compares the effectiveness of the procedure in the different conditions. The authors performed decompressive craniectomy following a constant surgical indication and compared the clinical outcomes in different neurosurgical diseases. Materials and methods  Seventy five patients who underwent decompressive craniectomy were analysed retrospectively. There were 28 with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), 24 cases with massive intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), and 23 cases with major infarction (MI). The surgical indications were GCS score less than 8 and/or a midline shift more than 6 mm on CT. The clinical outcomes were assessed on the basis of mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores. The changes of ventricular pressure related to the surgical intervention were also compared between the different disease groups. Findings  Clinical outcomes were evaluated 6 months after decompressive craniectomy. The mortality was 21.4% in patients with TBI, 25% in those with ICH and 60.9% in MI. A favourable outcome, i.e. GOS 4–5 (moderate disability or better) was observed in 16 (57.1%) patients with TBI, 12 (50%) with ICH and 7 (30.4%) with MI. The change of ventricular pressure after craniectomy and was 53.2 (reductions of 17.4%) and further reduced by 14.9% (with dural opening) and (24.8%) after returning to its recovery room, regardless of the diseases group. Conclusions  According to the mortality and GOS scores, decompressive craniectomy with dural expansion was found to be more effective in patients with ICH or TBI than in the MI group. However, the ventricular pressure change during the decompressive craniectomy was similar in the different disease groups. The authors thought that decompressive craniectomy should be performed earlier for the major infarction patients.