闪光视觉诱发电位对颅内感染患者颅内压的检测效果

发布时间：2018-02-27 02:07

本文关键词： 闪光视觉诱发电位颅内感染颅内压检测效果　出处：《中华医院感染学杂志》2017年17期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的探讨闪光视觉诱发电位(FEVP)对颅内感染患者颅内压的检测效果。方法选取医院自2012年6月-2016年12月收治的98例颅内感染患者为观察组;另选同期于医院神经内科住院的非颅内感染患者60例为对照组;观察组采用NIP-310型无创颅内压检测仪进行颅内压检测,同时行腰椎穿刺颅内压有创检测,对照组只行FEVP无创颅内压检测,对FVEP无创颅内压检测与有创颅内压检测结果进行比较,并对各组FVEP各波潜伏期进行比较,对观察组行腰椎穿刺采集脑脊液,进行病原菌检测。结果 98例颅内感染患者中检出病原菌106株,其中革兰阴性菌66株占62.26%,革兰阳性菌占35株占33.02%,真菌5株占4.72%,主要革兰阴性菌为鲍氏不动杆菌和大肠埃希菌,分别占26.42%和14.15%,主要革兰阳性菌是金黄色葡萄球菌和凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌,分别占14.15%和9.43%;FVEP无创颅内压检测与有创颅内压检测结果比较差异无统计学意义,直线相关性分析显示,FVEP无创颅内压检测值与有创颅内压检测值具有明显正相关性(r=0.832,P=0.003);观察组中正常颅内压患者22例占22.45%,轻度增高颅内压患者50例占51.02%,中度增高颅内压患者26例占26.53%;观察组中正常颅内压患者与对照组患者FVEP各波潜伏期比较,差异无统计学意义,轻度增高颅内压和中度增高颅内压患者FVEP各波潜伏期均显著高于对照组(P0.05),观察组中正常颅内压、轻度增高颅内压和中度增高颅内压患者组间FVEP各波潜伏期比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 FVEP检测颅内感染患者颅内压,与传统有创颅内压检测结果具有良好的一致性,值得临床推荐。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effect of flash visual evoked potential (FEVP) on intracranial pressure in patients with intracranial infection. Methods 98 patients with intracranial infection admitted from June 2012 to December 2016 were selected as observation group. In addition, 60 patients with non-intracranial infection who were hospitalized in the department of neurology at the same time were selected as the control group, the patients in the observation group were examined with NIP-310 noninvasive intracranial pressure detector and the lumbar puncture intracranial pressure was also detected. In the control group, the results of FVEP noninvasive intracranial pressure were compared with that of the invasive intracranial pressure, and the latencies of FVEP waves in each group were compared, and the cerebrospinal fluid was collected by lumbar puncture in the observation group. Results 106 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected in 98 patients with intracranial infection, of which 66 were Gram-negative bacteria (62.26), 35 Gram-positive bacteria (33.02%) and 5 fungi (4.72%). The main Gram-negative bacteria were Acinetobacter baumannii and Escherichia coli. The main gram-positive bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcus, and there was no significant difference in the results of noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) and invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) between 14.15% and 9.43 FVEP, respectively. Linear correlation analysis showed that there was a significant positive correlation between FVEP noninvasive intracranial pressure and invasive intracranial pressure, 22 normal intracranial pressure patients (22.45%), 50 mild intracranial pressure patients (51.02%) and moderate intracranial hypertension (moderate intracranial pressure) in the observation group (22 cases) with normal intracranial pressure (22 cases) and mild intracranial pressure (50 cases). The latency of FVEP waves in the observation group was compared with that in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The latency of FVEP waves in patients with mild and moderate intracranial pressure was significantly higher than that in the control group (P 0.05), and the normal intracranial pressure in the observation group was higher than that in the control group. There were significant differences in the latency of FVEP waves between patients with mild and moderate intracranial hypertension (P 0.05). Conclusion the results of FVEP for intracranial pressure in patients with intracranial infection are in good agreement with the results of traditional invasive intracranial pressure measurement. It is worthy of clinical recommendation.
【作者单位】：荆门市第二人民医院神经内科;荆门市第二人民医院消化内二、感染科;荆门市第二人民医院神经外科;
【分类号】：R741

【相似文献】