Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety difference between soft channel hemato⁃ ma puncture drainage（SCPD）and neural endoscopic intracranial hematoma evacuation（NEIHE）in the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage. Methods We collected the patients who received SCPD and NEIHE in the neurological intensive care unit of General Hospital Of Ningxia Medical University from January 2020 to December 2021. A total of 110 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage were treated with two different groups （53 cases in the SCPD group and 57 cases in the NEIHE group）. The operative time，intraoperative blood loss， 72h hematoma clearance rate，postoperative complications and functional recovery，length of hospital stay，cost and other related indicators were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with NEIHE group，SCPD group had shorter operation time（1.13 ± 0.41）vs.（1.78 ± 0.31）h，less intraoperative blood loss（10.83 ± 3.95）vs. （70.62 ± 43.12）mL，and lower cost（66 135.01 ± 33 178.64）vs.（95 834.93 ± 42 784.48）YUAN. However，the 72 ⁃ hour hematoma clearance rate of NEIHE group（86.87 ± 16.31）% was higher than that of SCPD group（74.4 ± 13.78）%，and there were statistical differences（P < 0.05）；There were no significant differences in postoperative complications，functional recovery and total hospital stay between the two groups（P > 0.05）. Conclusion SCPD and NEIHE can effectively remove intracranial hematoma ，improve nerve function，but SCPD group of shorter operation time，less intraoperative blood loss，and simple operation，suitable for intolerance to patients with general anesthesia surgery，whereas NEIHE hematoma removal more thoroughly. The two groups have no obvious differences in improving the prognosis of function and the overall length of hospital stay.

Key words:

soft channel puncture drainage, neural endoscopic intracranial hematoma evacuation, hyper? tensive intracerebral hemorrhage, clinical curative effect