| Objective To compare and analyze the efficacy, safety and prognosis of small hole craniotomy hematoma aspiration versus small bone window hematoma debridement in the treatment of senile hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage.Methods From Jan 2014 to Jan 2015, eighty patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage ever treated in our hospital were selected and randomly divided by coin toss into the study group and the control group, 40 cases in each group. Patients in the study group received small hole craniotomy hematoma aspiration, while the control group were treated with small bone window hematoma debridement, and the postoperative efficacy, complications, neural function recovery, and quality of life between them were compared. Results The operation time, hematoma absorption time and hospitalization time in the study group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05), and the hematoma clearance rate and postoperative recovery rate of the study group were also higher than those of the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The incidence of severe disability and complications in the study group was more lower (5.00% vs 45.00%, 20.00% vs 27.50%), and the differences between the two groups were significant (P<0.05). The NIHSS score decreased gradually at hospital discharge and during the follow-up period with neural function recovery, but the study group always got significantly lower scores than the control group (P<0.05), and the scores of quality of life after 6 months of following up were significantly higher in the study group as well (P<0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of senile hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage, small hole craniotomy hematoma aspiration has an advantage of more significant efficacy, lower rate of complications, higher recovery rate than small bone window hematoma debridement, and could improve patients' neural function and quality of life significantly. |
