切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (05) : 276 -279. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-123X.2020.05.005

所属专题: 文献

颅神经疾患

地塞米松鞘内注射与静脉注射在显微血管减压术后无菌性脑膜炎中的疗效比较
李红星1, 彭肖肖2, 张凯1, 刘贻哲1, 王瀚1, 宗强1,()   
  1. 1. 257000 山东东营,胜利油田中心医院神经外科
    2. 257000 山东东营,东营区人民医院口腔科
  • 收稿日期:2020-07-12 出版日期:2020-10-15
  • 通信作者: 宗强

Comparison of the clinical effect of dexamethasone intrathecal injection and intravenous injection for aseptic meningitis after microvascular decompression

Hongxing Li1, Xiaoxiao Peng2, Kai Zhang1, Yizhe Liu1, Han Wang1, Qiang Zong1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Shengli Oilfield Central Hospital, Dongying 257000, China
    2. Department of Stomatology, Dongying District People’s Hospital, Dongying 257000, China
  • Received:2020-07-12 Published:2020-10-15
  • Corresponding author: Qiang Zong
引用本文:

李红星, 彭肖肖, 张凯, 刘贻哲, 王瀚, 宗强. 地塞米松鞘内注射与静脉注射在显微血管减压术后无菌性脑膜炎中的疗效比较[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2020, 10(05): 276-279.

Hongxing Li, Xiaoxiao Peng, Kai Zhang, Yizhe Liu, Han Wang, Qiang Zong. Comparison of the clinical effect of dexamethasone intrathecal injection and intravenous injection for aseptic meningitis after microvascular decompression[J]. Chinese Journal of Brain Diseases and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2020, 10(05): 276-279.

目的

比较腰椎穿刺鞘内注射地塞米松与静脉推注地塞米松治疗显微血管减压术(MVD)术后无菌性脑膜炎(AM)的临床疗效。

方法

选择自2015年1月至2020年1月于胜利油田中心医院神经外科就诊行MVD并诊断为AM的138例患者为研究对象,将患者分为对照组(68例)和观察组(70例)。对照组患者采用静脉推注地塞米松(10 mg/次)治疗,频率为按需给药;观察组患者采用腰穿放液联合鞘内注射地塞米松[60 μg/(kg·次)]治疗,频率为每日或隔日1次。比较2组患者治疗后的头痛及发热缓解情况、术后住院时间、治疗次数及激素不良反应情况。

结果

治疗后8、72 h后,2组患者头痛、发热症状均明显好转,且观察组明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者的术后住院时间[(7.68±2.23)d]短于对照组[(12.76±2.37)d],治疗次数[(3.5±0.6)次]明显低于对照组[(6.8±0.9)次],差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),2组患者均未见明显的激素不良反应。

结论

腰穿放液联合鞘内注射地塞米松在治疗MVD术后AM患者中疗效确切,可有效改善患者头痛、发热等临床症状,减轻激素用量,缩短术后住院时间,具有重要的临床推广价值。

Objective

To comparison of the clinical effect of dexamethasone intrathecal injection and intravenous injection for aseptic meningitis (AM) after microvascular decompression (MVD).

Methods

One hundred and thirty-eight patients with AM after MVD in Department of Neurosurgery of Shengli Oilfield Central Hospital from January 2015 to January 2020 were selected as the research objects, and they were divided into control group and observation group. Sixty-eight patients in the control group were treated with intravenous injection of dexamethasone (10 mg/time), the frequency was on-demand administration; 70 patients in the observation group were treated with lumbar puncture liquid and intrathecal injection of dexamethasone (60 μg/(kg·times), the frequency was once a day or the next day. The remission of headache and fever, postoperative hospital stay, frequency of treatment, and adverse effects of steroid were compared between the two groups.

Results

At 8 and 72 h after treatment, the headache and fever of the two groups were remission, and the observation group was significantly better than the control group (P<0.05). The postoperative hospital stay of the observation group [(7.68±2.23) d] was significantly shorter than that of the control group [(12.76±2.37) d, P<0.05]. The frequency of treatment of the observation group (3.5±0.6) was significantly lower than that of the control group (6.8±0.9) (P<0.05). No significant adverse effects were observed in both groups.

Conclusion

The combination of lumbar puncture and dexamethasone intrathecal injection is significantly effective in treating AM after MVD, which can effectively improve the headache, fever and other clinical symptoms, reduce the amount of hormone, and shorten the postoperative hospital stay, and is worthy of promotion.

表1 2组患者一般资料比较
表2 2组患者治疗前头痛及发热程度分级比较(例)
表3 2组患者治疗后8、72 h头痛及发热程度分级比较(例)
[1]
于炎冰,张黎.显微血管减压术与颅神经疾病[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志, 2011, 10(2): 97-101.
[2]
Zarrouk V, Vassor I, Bert F, et al. Evaluation of the management of postoperative aseptic meningitis[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2007, 44(12): 1555-1559.
[3]
Marion DW. Aseptic versus bacterial postoperative meningitis: Cytokines as a distinguishing marker[J]. Crit Care Med, 2000, 28(1): 281-282.
[4]
Toth G, Rubeiz H, Macdonald RL. Polytetrafluoroethylene-induced granuloma and brainstem cyst after microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: case report[J]. Neurosurgery, 2007, 61(4): E875-E877; discussion E877.
[5]
徐伦山,许民辉,任明亮,等.颅脑手术后无菌性脑膜炎的诊断和治疗[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志, 2007, 6(5): 469-470.
[6]
成林,潘英,彭旭.颅脑手术中抗生素预防用药的临床分析[J].微创医学, 2017, 12(1): 133-135.
[7]
沈寻,靳文毅,盛森,等.地塞米松鞘内注射在脑神经微血管减压术后的应用[J].中国全科医学, 2011, 14(9): 972-974.
[8]
刘永博,王小花,刘学来,等.腰大池置管引流治疗显微血管减压术后无菌性脑膜炎[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志, 2014, 13(5): 467-468.
[9]
党帅.腰大池持续外引流治疗颅内肿瘤术后无菌性脑膜炎[J].医师进修杂志, 2005, 28(10): 52-52.
[1] 邵苗苗, 程青, 李英, 关玮伟, 胡利华, 王晓玲. 患儿腹部手术后常用药物配伍小儿电解质补给注射液的稳定性研究[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 18(06): 731-738.
[2] 张玉凤, 徐鹏飞, 唐甜甜, 刘瑞清, 万涵. 儿童川崎病并发胆汁淤积和无菌性脑膜炎一例[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 60-64.
[3] 黄铁刚, 肖凤霞. 地塞米松联合罗哌卡因在腹股沟疝修补术后镇痛效果及对血清指标的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 574-578.
[4] 吴培培, 陈秀丽, 冯程程, 徐海峰. 玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合地塞米松治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的临床研究[J]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(01): 24-30.
[5] 任鸿翔, 张黎, 张瑜廉, 刘学来, 于炎冰. 脑干听觉诱发电位在面肌痉挛显微血管减压术中的应用价值[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(02): 87-91.
[6] 张永明, 许少年, 赵鹏程, 姜国伟, 张圣帮, 丁俊, 钱峰. 神经电生理监测下显微血管减压术治疗左侧面肌痉挛[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(03): 191-192.
[7] 任鸿翔, 张黎, 申宇晓, 任贵玲, 于炎冰. 桥小脑角区肿瘤继发颅神经疾患的临床特点及疗效研究[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(03): 177-181.
[8] 贾戈, 任鸿翔, 张黎, 张瑜廉, 于炎冰. 面肌痉挛显微血管减压术中不同听力保护策略的疗效:一项随机对照研究[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(03): 170-176.
[9] 顾生才, 茆翔, 田学丰, 程宏伟. 持续腰大池引流联合鞘内注射庆大霉素对脑室出血术后颅内感染的临床效果分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(02): 100-102.
[10] 季晓军, 翟晓东, 栗晓芳, 赵佩林, 岳森卉, 张月明. 双途径替加环素治疗广泛耐药鲍曼不动杆菌颅内感染的疗效观察[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(02): 85-89.
[11] 王晶, 种玉龙, 姜成荣, 陆天宇, 戴宇翔, 梁维邦. 悬吊责任动脉技术治疗面肌痉挛的临床分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(05): 277-281.
[12] 王柏嵊, 张黎, 于炎冰. 面肌痉挛病因学的研究进展[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(04): 246-248.
[13] 姜成荣, 徐武, 种玉龙, 王晶, 周璐, 梁维邦. 三叉神经痛显微血管减压术中岩静脉的分型及处理策略[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(04): 200-203.
[14] 任鸿翔. 乙状窦后入路锁孔显微血管减压术治疗面肌痉挛[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(03): 188-192.
[15] 阿布地热合曼·吐尔孙尼牙孜, 石鑫, 郝玉军, 姜磊, 买买提江·卡斯木, 冯兆海, 裴祎楠. 显微血管减压术治疗舌咽神经痛疗效分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(02): 74-78.
阅读次数
全文


摘要