摘 要 目的:探討持續(xù)腰大池引流治療創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血臨床治療效果。方法:收治創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血患者100例,隨機(jī)分成對(duì)照組和觀察組各50例,對(duì)照組采取間斷腰椎穿刺生理鹽水置換腦脊液。觀察組采取持續(xù)腰大池引流治療。結(jié)果:觀察組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血6例,發(fā)生腦積水7例,發(fā)生腦梗死6例;對(duì)照組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血13例,發(fā)生腦積水16例,發(fā)生腦梗死12例。兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05),兩組隨訪6個(gè)月,對(duì)照組良好22例,中殘9例,重殘5例,植物生存4例,死亡10例;觀察組良好30例,中殘7例,重殘3例,植物生存3例,死亡7例,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。結(jié)論:持續(xù)腰大池引流治療創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血療效顯著。
關(guān)鍵詞 腰大池引流 創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血 腰椎穿刺
Abstract Objective:To study the effect of continuous lumbar cistern drainage in treatment of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage.Methods:We selected 100 cases of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage patients from 2010 June to 2013 June.These patients were randomly divided into observation group and control group with 50 cases in each.The control group adopted discontinuous lumbar puncture to exchange cerebrospinal fluid with physiological saline.The observation group adopted continuous lumbar cistern drainage.Results:The observation group occurred again subarachnoid hemorrhage in 6 patients, hydrocephalus in 7 cases and cerebral infarction in 6 cases.The control group occurred again subarachnoid hemorrhage in 13 patients,hydrocephalus in 16 cases and cerebral infarction in 12 cases.The difference between the two groups was significant (P<0.05).Follow up of 6 months,The control group patients had good effect 22 cases,moderate disability 9 cases,severe disability 5 cases,vegetative patient 4 cases and death 10 cases.The observation group patients had good effect 30 cases,moderate disability 7 cases,severe disability 3 cases,vegetative patient 3 cases and death 7 cases.The difference between the two groups was significant(P<0.05).Conclusion:The effect of continuous lumbar cistern drainage in the treatment of traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage is remarkable and is is worth spreading.
Key words Lumbar cistern drainage;Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage;Lumbar puncture
創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血(TSA)臨床上比較常見(jiàn)[1],是導(dǎo)致腦損傷后加重繼發(fā)腦損傷的主要因素[2],及時(shí)正確的治療對(duì)預(yù)后有著重要的意義。近年來(lái),采用持續(xù)腰大池引流治療取得了較好的臨床效果,現(xiàn)報(bào)告如下。
資料與方法
2010年6月-2013年6月收治創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血患者100例,均經(jīng)頭顱CT確診,其中男64例(64.0%),女36例(36.0%),男女之比1.78:1,年齡19~81歲,平均47.1歲。致傷因素:交通事故傷36例,墜落傷30例,擊打傷24例,其他10例。其中重度出血74例,中度出血26例。隨機(jī)分成對(duì)照組和觀察組各50例,兩組在年齡、性別、出血量等方面差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。
方法:對(duì)照組采取間斷腰椎穿刺生理鹽水置換腦脊液。觀察組采取持續(xù)腰大池引流治療,在局麻下選擇L3~4椎間進(jìn)行穿刺[3,4],穿刺成功后向頭側(cè)蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔置入麻醉導(dǎo)管深度3~6cm,導(dǎo)管尾端通過(guò)有調(diào)節(jié)閥門的引流管與無(wú)菌引流袋相接,控制引流的速度3~5滴/分,引流量150~400ml/24小時(shí)。持續(xù)引流至引流液清亮,顱內(nèi)壓連續(xù)2次監(jiān)測(cè)正常;腦脊液檢查蛋白:TP<0.8g/L,RBC<100×106/L,停止腰大池引流治療。同時(shí)靜脈微量泵入尼莫地平10mg/日,連續(xù)應(yīng)用10天,臨床癥狀穩(wěn)定后改為尼莫地平片劑20mg口服,3次/日,共10天。
結(jié) 果
兩組蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血、腦積水、腦梗死比較:觀察組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血6例,發(fā)生腦積水7例,發(fā)生腦梗死6例;對(duì)照組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血13例,發(fā)生腦積水16例,發(fā)生腦梗死12例,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05),見(jiàn)表1。
兩組臨床療效比較:兩組隨訪6個(gè)月,對(duì)照組良好22例,中殘9例,重殘5例,植物生存4例,死亡10例;觀察組良好30例,中殘7例,重殘3例,植物生存3例,死亡7例,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。
討 論
創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血可加重繼發(fā)腦損傷,出現(xiàn)再出血、腦積水、腦血管痙攣、腦梗死,對(duì)顱腦損傷預(yù)后造成直接影響,導(dǎo)致病死率及致殘率增加[5,6]。蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血后使得鈣離子通道開(kāi)放,鈣離子大量流入神經(jīng)細(xì)胞內(nèi),形成嚴(yán)重的鈣超載,導(dǎo)致腦細(xì)胞凋亡,加重血管源性滲出,血腦屏障通透性增加,使疾病加重。
持續(xù)腰大池引流治療創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血可以早期迅速釋放血性腦脊液,在生理壓力下持續(xù)外引流,可以將蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔的血性腦脊液充分引流出來(lái),顯著減少血性刺激物,加速蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔積血的清除,可減輕血性腦脊液對(duì)腦膜的持續(xù)刺激,防止腦血管痙攣的發(fā)生,減輕了患者的臨床癥狀,降低顱內(nèi)壓;在引流出非正常腦脊液的同時(shí),促進(jìn)了正常腦脊液的分泌和循環(huán),起到不斷沖洗和稀釋的作用,減少了遠(yuǎn)期腦積水的發(fā)生,相應(yīng)也減少了應(yīng)用脫水劑帶來(lái)的電解質(zhì)紊亂和腎功能損害等一系列不良反應(yīng),改善大腦、腦干功能,減少腦損傷[7]。
本組資料結(jié)果顯示:觀察組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血6例,發(fā)生腦積水7例,發(fā)生腦梗死6例;對(duì)照組發(fā)生蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔再出血13例,發(fā)生腦積水16例,發(fā)生腦梗死12例,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。兩組隨訪6個(gè)月,對(duì)照組良好22例,中殘9例,重殘5例,植物生存4例,死亡10例;觀察組良好30例,中殘7例,重殘3例,植物生存3例,死亡7例,兩組比較差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。由此可見(jiàn),持續(xù)腰大池引流治療創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血療效顯著,值得推廣。
參考文獻(xiàn)
1 Zimmermann M,Seifert V.Endothelin and subarachnoid hemorrhage:an overview[J].Neurosurgery,1998,43:843-844.
2 蔡政云,袁賢瑞,姜維喜.持續(xù)腰大池腦脊液引流治療創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血的療效觀察[J].中國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)工程,2012,14(1):42.
3 Hosoda K,F(xiàn)ujita S,Kawaguchi T,et al.Effect of clot removal and sur-gical manipulation on regional cerebral blood flow and delayed va-sospasm in early aneurysm surgery for subarachnoid hemorrhage[J].Surg Neurol,2009,51:81-83.
4 徐東,王鳳焰.蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血繼發(fā)腦積水[J].山東醫(yī)藥,2012,42(1):52-53.
5 Kim I,Leinweber BD,Morgalla M,et al.Thin and thick filament regula-tion of contractility in experimental cerebral vasospasm[J].Neurosurgery,2000,46:440-447.
6 Ullman JS,Bederson JB.Hypertemsive,hypervolemic,hemodilutional therapy for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage,Is it efficacious Yes[J].Crate Clin,1996,12(3):697-699.
7 單光明,張劍寧,宋少軍.重度創(chuàng)傷性蛛網(wǎng)膜下腔出血54例臨床分析[J].中國(guó)廠礦醫(yī)學(xué),2011,17(3):185.