Ommaya Reservoir Sac Combined With Ventricular Drainage In Treatment Of Intraventricular Hemorrhage Clinical Research

Background and purposeIntraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in cerebrovascular disease is extremely common,acute onset, high rate of mortality and disability, the prognosis is often poor, seriousharm to people’s health. The purpose of this research was to investigate the Ommayareservoir sac combined ventricular drainage treatment IVH role.Materials and MethodsThis study investigated the IVH retrospective clinical data from January2010toFebruary2014in our hospital during the period, in line with screening patients enrolleda total of41cases included in this research. For the study of pure ventricular drainagecombined with Ommaya reservoir sac ventricular drainage therapy treatment IVH werecase-control study,41patients were divided into groups and ventricular drainageOmmaya groups according to treatment,22cases in which the Ommaya group,ventricular drainage group19cases. Ommaya group with Ommaya reservoir saccombined ventricular drainage treatment IVH; EVD group using simple ventriculardrainage treatment. To compare the two groups on the severity of consistency, we bothgroups of patients before surgery statistics by sex, age, blood pressure, Glasgow ComaScale (GCS), and intraventricular hemorrhage Greab score determined. Collected afterthe two groups at the time with a pipe, and when the correlation between the rate ofdischarge hematoma, intracranial infection, intracranial infection and application ofurokinase GCS score and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and other aspects ofcomparative absence difference.Result 1, preoperative gender, age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, GCS scoreand Graeb score difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).2, Ommaya drainage group, the average time was5.36±1.52days, the number ofcases of intracranial infection,7cases of intracranial infection rate was31.81%. UKinfusion therapy which has nine cases, accounting for40.9%of intracranial infusiontherapy applications UK the number of cases for the three cases of infection, accountingfor33.3%of UK infusion therapy. Non-UK infusion therapy the number of cases ofintracranial infection in4cases, accounting for30.8%of non-UK infusion therapy. Themean ventricular drainage drainage time was4.47±1.74days, the number of cases ofintracranial infection in8cases, intracranial infection rate was42.1%. UK infusiontherapy which has three cases, accounting for15.7%of intracranial infusion therapyapplications UK the number of cases of infection in2cases, accounting for66.7%ofUK infusion therapy. UK infusion therapy several cases of intracranial infection in6cases, accounting for37.5%of UK infusion therapy. Two treatment methods X2overallinfection rate was no significant difference (P>0.05) test; Ommaya Group UK and non-UK infusion infusion therapy treatment of intracranial infection was no significantdifference (P>0.05); EVD group UK infusion therapy infusion therapy with non-UKintracranial infection was no significant difference (P <0.05). Two groups of patientswere part of a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests, collecting CSF white blood tests, glucose,protein, chlorides t tests were conducted, of which there are significant differences inCSF white blood cell (P <0.05) and two Portuguese sugar sugar, protein and There wasno statistically significant difference chloride (P>0.05).3, early postoperative Ommaya group (1~3d) hematoma was70.92±27.44%. Earlypostoperative ventricular drainage group (1~3d) hematoma rate24.06%±5.75%.Ommaya group after the mid-(4~6d) hematoma was83.51±20.82%. Interimpostoperative ventricular drainage surgery (4~6d) hematoma rate53.28±19.33%.Ommaya late postoperative group (>7d) hematoma was87.38±18.60%. After the latepostoperative ventricular drainage group (>7d) hematoma rate76.10±22.92%. Two groups t test, the difference between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05).4, when the patient was discharged Ommaya group GCS score was11.09±5.10;ventricular drainage when the patient group was discharged GCS score was7.05±5.68. The patient was discharged Ommaya group GOS score was3.90±1.34, whenthe patient was discharged ventricular drainage group GOS score was2.15±1.34.Were confirmed by t test, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05).5, Ommaya group hydrocephalus0cases. EVD group one case of hydrocephalus.Ommaya group1died. EVD group one case of hydrocephalus. X2test respectively,were statistically significant (P <0.05).ConclusionsApplication Ommaya reservoir sac ventricular drainage combined treatment ofintraventricular hemorrhage, compared with conventional ventricular drainage,hematoma fast, hydrocephalus rate, low mortality in patients with good prognosis, andeffective. Mainly in the following points:1, the average length of time with the tube,similar to the total intracranial infection, prolonged time with no increase in the risk ofinfection pipe;2, the application did not increase the risk of infection after urokinaseinfusion helps hematoma fast Clear;3, unplug ventricular drainage may continue afterOmmaya sac puncture and drainage lines to prevent the occurrence of latehydrocephalus.