论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨经侧裂岛叶入路和经颞叶皮质入路血肿清除术治疗青年重症基底节区脑出血的疗效差异。方法:回顾性纳入2012年2月至2021年2月在安康市中心医院接受开颅血肿清除术治疗的青年基底节区重症脑出血患者。发病后6个月时采用格拉斯哥转归量表评价转归，4~5分定义为转归良好，1~3分定义为转归不良。应用多变量n logistic回归分析确定转归不良的独立影响因素。n 结果:共纳入51例患者，年龄中位数41岁（四分位数间距39~43岁），男性29例（56.8%），入院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分中位数6.0分（四分位数间距5.5~7.0分），基线血肿体积中位数38.0 ml（34.5~47.5 ml）。经侧裂岛叶入路组21例（41.2%），经颞叶皮质入路组30例（58.8%）；转归良好31例（60.8%），转归不良20例（39.2%）。经侧裂岛叶入路组人口统计学、血管危险因素以及各项基线临床资料与经颞叶皮质入路组均差异无统计学意义。与经颞叶皮质入路组相比，经侧裂岛叶入路组术中出血量和血肿残留更少，需行去骨瓣减压术的患者比例（33.3%对63.3%；n χ2=4.449，n P=0.035）更低，使用脱水药物时间和住院时间更短（n P均<0.05）。但两组转归良好率差异无统计学意义（66.7%对56.7%；n χ2=0.518，n P=0.472）。多变量n logistic回归分析显示，入院格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分较低（优势比0.128，95%置信区间0.017~0.977；n P=0.047）和住院时间较长（优势比1.402，95%置信区间1.065~1.844；n P=0.016）与转归不良独立相关。n 结论:对于行血肿清除术的青年重症基底节区脑出血患者，尽管采用经侧裂岛叶入路的患者转归与经颞叶皮质入路无显著差异，但前者更具优势。“,”Objective:To investigate the difference in efficacy between transsylvian-transinsular approach and transcortical-transtemporal approach for hematoma evacuation in the treatment of severe basal ganglia intracerebral hemorrhage in young adults.Methods:Young adult patients with severe intracerebral hemorrhage in the basal ganglia region underwent craniotomy hematoma removal in Ankang Central Hospital from February 2012 to February 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The Glasgow Outcome Scale score was used to evaluate the outcome at 6 months after onset. 4-5 were defined as good outcome and 1-3 were defined as poor outcome. Multivariate n logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent influencing factors of the poor outcomes.n Results:A total of 51 patients were enrolled. Their median age was 41 (interquartile range 39-43) years, and 29 were men (56.8%). The median Glasgow Coma Scale score at admission was 6.0 (interquartile range 5.5-7.0), and the median baseline hematoma volume was 38.0 ml (34.5-47.5 ml). Twenty-one patients (41.2%) were in the transsylvian-transinsular approach group and 30 (58.8%) were in the transcortical-transtemporal approach group. There were no significant differences in demographics, vascular risk factors and baseline clinical data between the transsylvian-transinsular approach group and the transcortical-transtemporal approach group. Compared with the transcortical-transtemporal approach group, the amount of intraoperative bleeding and hematoma residue in the transsylvian-transinsular approach group were less, the proportion of patients requiring decompressive craniectomy was lower (33.3% n vs. 63.3%; n χ2=4.449, n P=0.035), and the duration of dehydration medication and hospital stay were shorter (all n P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the good outcome rate between the two groups (66.7%n vs. 56.7%; n χ2=0.518, n P=0.472). Multivariate n logistic regression analysis showed that lower scores of Glasgow Coma Scale at admission (odds ratio 0.128, 95% confidence interval 0.017-0.977; n P=0.047) and longer hospital stay (odds ratio 1.402, 95% confidence interval 1.065-1.844; n P=0.016) were independently associated with the poor outcomes.n Conclusion:For young adult patients with severe basal ganglia intracerebral hemorrhage who underwent hematoma removal, although there was no significant difference between the outcomes of patients with transsylvian-transinsular approach and transcortical-transtemporal approach, the former had more advantages.