A Retrospective Cohort Study of Neuroendoscopic Surgery versus Traditional Craniotomy on Surgical Success Rate, Postoperative Complications, and Prognosis in Patients with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective. A case-control study was adopted to explore the effect of neuroendoscopy compared with traditional craniotomy on the success rate, postoperative complications, and prognosis of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods. The clinical data of 106 patients with ICH treated in our hospital from March 2019 to June 2021 were collected and analyzed retrospectively and divided into two groups according to different treatment methods. The patients who were cured by craniotomy were in the control group (n = 53), and those who received neuroendoscopic surgery were in the research group (n = 53).The clinical efficacy of patients was compared, and the cognition and daily living ability were evaluated by the Trier cognitive assessment scale, limb motor function score, and activity of daily living scale. The National Institutes of Health Stroke scale (NIHSS) and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were used to compare the neurological function of the two groups before and after treatment, and the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and disability rating scale (DRS) were adopted to evaluate the functional prognosis. The simplified Fugl-Meyer motor function score was adopted to evaluate the patient’s limb function, the Montreal cognitive assessment scale was adopted to evaluate the patient’s cognitive function, the Barthel index score was adopted to evaluate the daily living ability of patients, and the treatment of patients was recorded. Results. In comparison with groups, the effective rate of treatment in the research group was higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Regarding the surgical indicators, the hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative residual blood flow, and total hospital stay in the research group were remarkably lower, the hematoma clearance rate in the research group was remarkably higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant( P < 0.05 ). After operation, the KPS scores indicated a gradual upward trend, and those of the research group were higher at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after operation. The Barthel index scores were compared. After treatment, the Barthel index scores increased. In comparison with the two groups, the Barthel index scores of the research group were higher at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after surgery, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). The NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores were compared. After treatment, the NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores were decreased. In comparison with the two groups, the NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores of the research group were remarkably lower, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). With regard to the cognitive and physical function recovery after treatment, the MoCA score and Fugl-Meyer score of the research group were remarkably higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant( P < 0.05 ). The quality of life scores was compared. After treatment, the quality of life scores decreased. In comparison with the two groups, the scores of physiological function, psychological function, social function, and healthy self-awareness of the research group were lower, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). The incidence of postoperative complications in the research group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Compared with conventional craniotomy, neuroendoscopic surgery can remarkably reduce the operation time and blood loss, enhance the hematoma clearance rate, and have a better prognosis, which is more conducive to the recovery of postoperative neurological function, life activities, and quality of life of patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».