Brain injury · 2015
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in poor-grade patients with chronic normal pressure hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Yu Hai, Yang Min, Zhan Xiaobo, Zhu Yu, Shen Jian, Zhan Renya
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyse the shunt placement in patients who had normal pressure hydrocephalus after poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH).
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with NPH after poor-grade aSAH were divided into a treatment group and control group, based on whether they had received ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. The treatment group was then divided into an improvement group and non-improvement group according to their recovery. The Glasgow Outcome Scale and Mini Mental Scale Examination were used for 3 month and 1 year follow-up rehabilitation measures.
RESULTS: Of the 46 total patients, significant improvement was observed at the 3 month and 1 year follow-ups (p < 0.01) after shunt implantation in the treatment group compared to the control group. Furthermore, patients who were younger (p = 0.022), had better neurological function (higher Glasgow Coma Score, p < 0.01) and less severe hydrocephalus (lower EI, p < 0.01) appears to be more likely to benefit from the shunt.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had NPH due to poor-grade aSAH would benefit from shunt placement when given the correct candidates and timely management of shunt malfunction. Additionally, the curative effect of the shunt should have been regarded as a long-term goal of rehabilitation in these patients.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with NPH after poor-grade aSAH were divided into a treatment group and control group, based on whether they had received ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement. The treatment group was then divided into an improvement group and non-improvement group according to their recovery. The Glasgow Outcome Scale and Mini Mental Scale Examination were used for 3 month and 1 year follow-up rehabilitation measures.
RESULTS: Of the 46 total patients, significant improvement was observed at the 3 month and 1 year follow-ups (p < 0.01) after shunt implantation in the treatment group compared to the control group. Furthermore, patients who were younger (p = 0.022), had better neurological function (higher Glasgow Coma Score, p < 0.01) and less severe hydrocephalus (lower EI, p < 0.01) appears to be more likely to benefit from the shunt.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had NPH due to poor-grade aSAH would benefit from shunt placement when given the correct candidates and timely management of shunt malfunction. Additionally, the curative effect of the shunt should have been regarded as a long-term goal of rehabilitation in these patients.