Comparison of Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between Surgical and Conservative Management of Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients: A Randomized Control Trial

M. Islam, S. Khan, Mahfuzur Rahman, M. H. Talukder, R. Karim, A. Salam
{"title":"Comparison of Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) between Surgical and Conservative Management of Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients: A Randomized Control Trial","authors":"M. Islam, S. Khan, Mahfuzur Rahman, M. H. Talukder, R. Karim, A. Salam","doi":"10.3329/JCAMR.V5I2.37059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were the important parameter for the proper management of spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the GOS and GCS between surgical and conservative management of spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Methodology: This randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Neurosurgery at Dhaka Medical College and Hospital from January 2010 to October 2011 for a period of one year and ten months. All hypertensive patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage who were admitted within 48 hours of stroke in Neurosurgery Department during the study period were considered as a study population. Patients underwent surgery was considered as group I and patients those who did not give the consent for operation were treated conservatively was considered as group II.Result: A total of 31 patients were enrolled in this study of which 14 patients underwent surgical evacuation and 17 patients were selected for conservative therapy. Significant positive correlation was found between the GCS score on admission and GOS at 30 days follow-up in surgery group (r=0.649; p<0.05). But a positive significant correlation (r=0.613; P=0.020) was between GCS follow up with GCS on admission in surgery patients and (r=0.575; P=0.016) in conservative group.Conclusion: In conclusion both GOS and GCS are essential during the management of surgical and conservative spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research 2018;5(2):49-54","PeriodicalId":15413,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/JCAMR.V5I2.37059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were the important parameter for the proper management of spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the GOS and GCS between surgical and conservative management of spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Methodology: This randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Neurosurgery at Dhaka Medical College and Hospital from January 2010 to October 2011 for a period of one year and ten months. All hypertensive patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage who were admitted within 48 hours of stroke in Neurosurgery Department during the study period were considered as a study population. Patients underwent surgery was considered as group I and patients those who did not give the consent for operation were treated conservatively was considered as group II.Result: A total of 31 patients were enrolled in this study of which 14 patients underwent surgical evacuation and 17 patients were selected for conservative therapy. Significant positive correlation was found between the GCS score on admission and GOS at 30 days follow-up in surgery group (r=0.649; p<0.05). But a positive significant correlation (r=0.613; P=0.020) was between GCS follow up with GCS on admission in surgery patients and (r=0.575; P=0.016) in conservative group.Conclusion: In conclusion both GOS and GCS are essential during the management of surgical and conservative spontaneous supratentorialintracerebral hemorrhage patients.Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research 2018;5(2):49-54
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
自发性幕上脑出血患者手术和保守治疗的格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS)和格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)比较:一项随机对照试验
背景:格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS)和格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)是正确处理自发性幕上脑出血患者的重要指标。目的:比较手术和保守治疗自发性幕上脑出血患者的GOS和GCS。方法:本随机对照试验于2010年1月至2011年10月在达卡医学院和医院神经外科进行,为期一年零10个月。所有研究期间在神经外科中风后48小时内入院的高血压自发性幕上脑出血患者均被视为研究人群。接受手术的患者被视为I组,不同意保守治疗的患者被视为II组。结果:本研究共纳入31例患者,其中手术引流14例,保守治疗17例。手术组入院时GCS评分与随访30 d GOS呈显著正相关(r=0.649;p < 0.05)。但正显著相关(r=0.613;P=0.020),手术患者入院时GCS随访与GCS (r=0.575;P=0.016)。结论:GOS和GCS在手术和保守治疗自发性幕上脑出血患者中是必不可少的。现代医学研究进展,2018;5(2):49-54
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Miniperc and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Renal Stone: An Open Level Parallel Arm Randomized Control Trial Characteristics of Carotid Artery among Ischemic Heart Disease Patients with or without Diabetes Mellitus Embracing the Potential of Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: A Path to Hope and Progress Age and Gender Differences with Clinical Presentation of Patients with Histopathological and CT-Scan Confirmed Parapharyngeal Mass Anthropometric Analysis Between Naso Aural Inclination and Their Correlation in Bangladeshi Buddhist Rakhain Ethnic Females
×
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