重型颅脑损伤急性硬膜下血肿开颅与减压开颅的比较。

Shih-Han Chen, Yun Chen, Wen-Kuei Fang, Da-Wei Huang, Kuo-Chang Huang, Sheng-Hong Tseng
{"title":"重型颅脑损伤急性硬膜下血肿开颅与减压开颅的比较。","authors":"Shih-Han Chen,&nbsp;Yun Chen,&nbsp;Wen-Kuei Fang,&nbsp;Da-Wei Huang,&nbsp;Kuo-Chang Huang,&nbsp;Sheng-Hong Tseng","doi":"10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is helpful in lowering the intracranial pressure in patients with severe head injuries. However, it is still unclear which surgical approach (DC or craniotomy) is the optimal treatment strategy for severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma (SDH). To clarify this point, we compared the outcomes and complications of the patients with acute SDH and low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score treated with craniotomy or DC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 102 patients with acute SDH and GCS scores of 4 to 8. Of them, 42 patients (41.2%) were treated with craniotomy and 60 (58.8%) treated with DC for evacuation of hematoma. The demographic and clinical data were analyzed including patient age, sex, injury mechanism, GCS score, pupil size and light reflex, time interval from injury to operation, types of surgical procedures, intracranial findings in pre- and postoperative computed tomography scan, intracranial pressure, complications, requirement of permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion, and Glasgow Outcome Scale score after at least 1 year of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The craniotomy and DC groups showed no difference in the demographic and clinical data. There was no difference in the outcomes and complication rates between these two groups except that the DC group had higher mortality than the craniotomy group (23.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both craniotomy and DC were feasible treatment strategies for acute SDH. The patients with acute SDH and low GCS score treated with craniotomy or DC showed no difference in the outcomes and complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":48894,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c","citationCount":"64","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy in severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma.\",\"authors\":\"Shih-Han Chen,&nbsp;Yun Chen,&nbsp;Wen-Kuei Fang,&nbsp;Da-Wei Huang,&nbsp;Kuo-Chang Huang,&nbsp;Sheng-Hong Tseng\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is helpful in lowering the intracranial pressure in patients with severe head injuries. However, it is still unclear which surgical approach (DC or craniotomy) is the optimal treatment strategy for severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma (SDH). To clarify this point, we compared the outcomes and complications of the patients with acute SDH and low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score treated with craniotomy or DC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 102 patients with acute SDH and GCS scores of 4 to 8. Of them, 42 patients (41.2%) were treated with craniotomy and 60 (58.8%) treated with DC for evacuation of hematoma. The demographic and clinical data were analyzed including patient age, sex, injury mechanism, GCS score, pupil size and light reflex, time interval from injury to operation, types of surgical procedures, intracranial findings in pre- and postoperative computed tomography scan, intracranial pressure, complications, requirement of permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion, and Glasgow Outcome Scale score after at least 1 year of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The craniotomy and DC groups showed no difference in the demographic and clinical data. There was no difference in the outcomes and complication rates between these two groups except that the DC group had higher mortality than the craniotomy group (23.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both craniotomy and DC were feasible treatment strategies for acute SDH. The patients with acute SDH and low GCS score treated with craniotomy or DC showed no difference in the outcomes and complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c\",\"citationCount\":\"64\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b3c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 64

摘要

背景:颅脑减压术(DC)有助于降低重型颅脑损伤患者的颅内压。然而,对于严重颅脑损伤合并急性硬膜下血肿(SDH)患者,目前尚不清楚哪种手术入路(DC或开颅)是最佳治疗策略。为了阐明这一点,我们比较了急性SDH和低格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)患者开颅或DC治疗的结果和并发症。方法:分析102例急性SDH患者,GCS评分为4 ~ 8分。其中开颅引流42例(41.2%),DC引流60例(58.8%)。人口统计学和临床数据分析包括患者年龄、性别、损伤机制、GCS评分、瞳孔大小和光反射、损伤至手术的时间间隔、手术方式类型、术前和术后计算机断层扫描颅内表现、颅内压、并发症、永久性脑脊液分流的要求以及随访至少1年后的格拉斯哥结局量表评分。结果:开颅组和DC组在人口学和临床资料上没有差异。两组的预后和并发症发生率无差异,但DC组的死亡率高于开颅组(23.3%比7.1%,p = 0.04)。结论:开颅和DC均是治疗急性SDH的可行方法。GCS评分较低的急性SDH患者采用开颅或DC治疗,其预后和并发症无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy in severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma.

Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is helpful in lowering the intracranial pressure in patients with severe head injuries. However, it is still unclear which surgical approach (DC or craniotomy) is the optimal treatment strategy for severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma (SDH). To clarify this point, we compared the outcomes and complications of the patients with acute SDH and low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score treated with craniotomy or DC.

Methods: We analyzed 102 patients with acute SDH and GCS scores of 4 to 8. Of them, 42 patients (41.2%) were treated with craniotomy and 60 (58.8%) treated with DC for evacuation of hematoma. The demographic and clinical data were analyzed including patient age, sex, injury mechanism, GCS score, pupil size and light reflex, time interval from injury to operation, types of surgical procedures, intracranial findings in pre- and postoperative computed tomography scan, intracranial pressure, complications, requirement of permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion, and Glasgow Outcome Scale score after at least 1 year of follow-up.

Results: The craniotomy and DC groups showed no difference in the demographic and clinical data. There was no difference in the outcomes and complication rates between these two groups except that the DC group had higher mortality than the craniotomy group (23.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Both craniotomy and DC were feasible treatment strategies for acute SDH. The patients with acute SDH and low GCS score treated with craniotomy or DC showed no difference in the outcomes and complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-EMERGENCY MEDICINE
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊最新文献
Future of ultrasound wound therapy: Technologies, devices, science and clinical outcomes The use of amniotic membrane in healing excisional debridement of sea urchin stings Diagnostic diligence in trauma and injury care through forensic pathology The incidence of chronic pain following tibial diaphyseal fracture. Acute compartment syndrome in patients on long-term anticoagulation therapy
×
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