Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.5114/wiitm.2024.140613
Yi Xiao, Renping Wang
{"title":"Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage","authors":"Yi Xiao, Renping Wang","doi":"10.5114/wiitm.2024.140613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<b>Introduction</b><br/>Hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage is one of the most serious complications of hypertension. The treatment focuses on reducing bleeding damage and promoting functional recovery.<br/><br/><b>Aim</b><br/>This study investigated the efficacy and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal (EIHR) and hematoma puncture and drainage (HPD) in treating hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH).<br/><br/><b>Material and methods</b><br/>Ninety-two patients admitted to our hospital for EIHR and HPD between September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022 were enrolled, including 14 cases of EIHR (endoscopy group) and 78 cases of HPD (puncture group). The efficacy of the two surgery modes in treating HICH patients was compared. Univariate logistic regression (ULR) and multivariate logistic regression (MLR) were employed to analyze the influences of different treatment methods on the prognosis of patients with HICH.<br/><br/><b>Results</b><br/>The average hematoma clearance rate (HCR) of all patients was 80.52%, and the patients in the endoscopy group had a higher HCR than those in the puncture group (73.00% vs. 86.00%) (p &lt; 0.001). The good prognosis rate (GPR) shown by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score in the endoscopy group was 69.23%, and that in the puncture group was 40.38%, a large but statistically non-significant difference (p &gt; 0.05).<br/><br/><b>Conclusions</b><br/>The HCR of EIHR was greatly higher based on that of HPD, but showed no great difference in prognostic effect. The higher the GCS score on admission, the lower the likelihood of poor prognosis.<br/><br/>","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2024.140613","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction
Hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage is one of the most serious complications of hypertension. The treatment focuses on reducing bleeding damage and promoting functional recovery.

Aim
This study investigated the efficacy and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal (EIHR) and hematoma puncture and drainage (HPD) in treating hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH).

Material and methods
Ninety-two patients admitted to our hospital for EIHR and HPD between September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022 were enrolled, including 14 cases of EIHR (endoscopy group) and 78 cases of HPD (puncture group). The efficacy of the two surgery modes in treating HICH patients was compared. Univariate logistic regression (ULR) and multivariate logistic regression (MLR) were employed to analyze the influences of different treatment methods on the prognosis of patients with HICH.

Results
The average hematoma clearance rate (HCR) of all patients was 80.52%, and the patients in the endoscopy group had a higher HCR than those in the puncture group (73.00% vs. 86.00%) (p < 0.001). The good prognosis rate (GPR) shown by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score in the endoscopy group was 69.23%, and that in the puncture group was 40.38%, a large but statistically non-significant difference (p > 0.05).

Conclusions
The HCR of EIHR was greatly higher based on that of HPD, but showed no great difference in prognostic effect. The higher the GCS score on admission, the lower the likelihood of poor prognosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜下颅内血肿清除术和血肿穿刺引流术对高血压性脑出血患者的影响和预后
导言高血压脑出血是高血压最严重的并发症之一,治疗重点是减少出血损伤和促进功能恢复。目的 探讨内镜下颅内血肿清除术(EIHR)和血肿穿刺引流术(HPD)治疗高血压性脑出血(HICH)的疗效和预后。材料与方法选取2021年9月30日至2022年9月30日期间我院收治的92例EIHR和HPD患者作为研究对象,其中EIHR(内镜组)14例,HPD(穿刺组)78例。比较了两种手术方式治疗 HICH 患者的疗效。结果所有患者的平均血肿清除率(HCR)为80.52%,内镜组患者的HCR高于穿刺组(73.00% vs. 86.00%)(P <0.001)。结论 EIHR的HCR在HPD的基础上大大提高,但在预后效果上没有太大差异。入院时 GCS 评分越高,预后不良的可能性越低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
23.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.
期刊最新文献
Early-stage voiding function following uni- versus bilateral inferior vesical vessel resection during therapeutic lateral lymph node dissection with autonomic nerve sparing for advanced low rectal cancer (with video) Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage Outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for pulmonary metastasis: who benefits the most? Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors Clinical comparative study of laparoscopic partial splenectomy and open partial splenectomy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1