摘要
目的:比较高血压脑出血颅内血肿微创穿刺软通道技术与硬通道技术的临床疗效。方法:纳入高血压性脑出血患者96例,随机分为两组,硬通道组(47例)行硬通道微创穿刺技术治疗,软通道组(49例)行软通道微创穿刺技术治疗,对比治疗效果。结果:两组临床效果与3个月日常生活能力无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:这两种方法都可用于高血压性脑出血的微创治疗,治疗效果无显著差异,但各有优缺点。
Oblective：To compare the hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage with intracranial hematoma puncture minimally invasive soft- channel technology and the clinical effect of hard-channel technology.Methods：Patients included in hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage,96 cases were randomly divided into two groups,hard-channel group （47 patients） hard tunnel minimally invasive treatment of puncture,the soft- ehannet group （49 patients） in treatment of soft-channel minimally invasive puncture contrast therapy.Results：Two groups of curative effect and 3 months of daily living rate were no statistic significant difference（P〉0.05）.Conelusion：The both ways can equally treat hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage,but both has its strongpoint and weakness.
出处
《中国医药导刊》
2011年第3期409-410,共2页
Chinese Journal of Medicinal Guide
关键词
软通道
硬通道
微创治疗
高血压性脑出血
Soft tube
Hard tube
Minimally invasive microptmcture
Hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
