Clinical efficacy and prognosis of standard large trauma craniotomy for patients with severe frontotemporal craniocerebral injury.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
To observe the clinical efficacy, incidence of postoperative complications, and the quality of life in patients with severe craniocerebral injury undergoing standard large trauma craniotomy.
METHODS
Seventy-eight patients with severe craniocerebral injury who had been admitted to Hubei Hanchuan People's Hospital were selected retrospectively and assigned into an observation group and control group according to the treatment received, with 39 patients in each group. Patients in the control group were treated with conventional decompressive craniotomy and those in the observation group with standard large trauma craniotomy. The prognosis (GOS score), intracranial pressure before and after surgery, neurological functions (NIHSS score), cerebral hemodynamics (Vm, Vs, PI), quality of life (SF-36 score) and postoperative complications were compared.
RESULTS
The number of patients whose GOS scores were graded 5 was markedly higher in the observation group than that in the control group (P<0.05). The postoperative intracranial pressure and NIHSS scores in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.001). The postoperative Vm, Vs and PI were lower in the observation group than those in the control group, respectively (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of complications in the two groups (P>0.05). The SF-36 scores in the observation group were higher than those of the control group (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION
Standard large trauma craniotomy is effective in treating patients with severe frontotemporal craniocerebral injury. It decreases intracranial pressure, improves neurological function and quality of life and results in a good prognosis.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.