切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华危重症医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (06) : 473 -479. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6880.2024.06.006

论著

内镜经鼻和显微镜经颅两种视神经管减压术治疗外伤性视神经病变的疗效分析
叶红星1, 马跃辉1, 张超1, 兰平1, 黄凯源1, 詹仁雅1, 郑秀珏1,()   
  1. 1.310003 杭州,浙江大学医学院附属第一医院神经外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-11-05 出版日期:2024-12-31
  • 通信作者: 郑秀珏
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省基础公益研究计划项目(LY18H160020)

Efficacy analysis of endoscopic endonasal and microsurgical transcranial optic canal decompression for traumatic optic neuropathy

Hongxing Ye1, Yuehui Ma1, Chao Zhang1, Ping Lan1, Kaiyuan Huang1, Renya Zhan1, Xiujue Zheng1,()   

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, China
  • Received:2024-11-05 Published:2024-12-31
  • Corresponding author: Xiujue Zheng
引用本文:

叶红星, 马跃辉, 张超, 兰平, 黄凯源, 詹仁雅, 郑秀珏. 内镜经鼻和显微镜经颅两种视神经管减压术治疗外伤性视神经病变的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 473-479.

Hongxing Ye, Yuehui Ma, Chao Zhang, Ping Lan, Kaiyuan Huang, Renya Zhan, Xiujue Zheng. Efficacy analysis of endoscopic endonasal and microsurgical transcranial optic canal decompression for traumatic optic neuropathy[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2024, 17(06): 473-479.

目的

探讨经鼻视神经管减压术(EEOCD) 和显微镜经颅视神经管减压术(MTOCD)对外伤性视神经病变(TON)的治疗效果以及影响术后视力无改善的危险因素。

方法

回顾性分析2015 年8 月至2023 年7 月在浙江大学医学院附属第一医院神经外科接受手术治疗的47 例TON 患者的临床资料,根据手术入路不同分为EEOCD 组(26 例)和MTOCD 组(21 例)。比较两组患者的基线资料、手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数及术后视力恢复情况。Logistic 回归分析影响TON 患者视神经管减压术后视力无改善的危险因素。

结果

EEOCD 组患者手术时间[(136 ± 13)min vs.(183 ± 21)min,t = 9.361,P <0.001]、术中出血量[(153 ± 32)mL vs.(205 ±54)mL,t=4.112,P <0.001]及住院天数[(7.9±1.5)d vs.(11.0±1.2)d,t= 7.494,P <0.001]均少于MTOCD 组。两组患者视力改善率分别为57.7%(15/26)和42.9%(9/21),组间比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.023,P=0.312)。多因素logistic 回归表明:受伤至手术时间>7 d 是影响TON 患者术后视力无改善的危险因素[比值比=8.515,95%置信区间(1.647,44.032),P=0.011],而年龄、性别、眼眶骨折、视神经管骨折、筛窦/蝶窦积血、手术入路、视神经鞘膜切开等均不是其影响因素(P均>0.05)。

结论

EEOCD 和MTOCD 在TON 患者术后视力改善率上效果相当,但EEOCD 在微创上具有一定优势。对有手术指征的TON 患者应强调尽早手术的重要性。

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic endonasal optic canal decompression (EEOCD) and microsurgical transcranial optic canal decompression (MTOCD) in treating traumatic optic neuropathy (TON) and to explore the risk factors of postoperative visual non-improvement.

Methods

The clinical data of 47 TON patients who underwent surgery in the Department of Neurosurgery of the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine from August 2015 to July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed.Patients were divided into an EEOCD group (26 cases) and a MTOCD group (21 cases) based on the surgical approach.The baseline data, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative visual recovery were compared between the two groups.Logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors for postoperative visual non-improvement in TON patients.

Results

The EEOCD group had a shorter operation time [(136 ±13)min vs.(183±21)min, t=9.361, P <0.001], less intraoperative blood loss [(153 ±32)mL vs.(205 ±54)mL, t=4.112, P <0.001], and a shorter hospital stay [(7.9±1.5)days vs.(11.0±1.2)days, t=7.494, P <0.001] compared to the MTOCD group.The visual improvement rates were 57.7% (15 / 26) for the EEOCD group and 42.9% (9 / 21) for the MTOCD group, with no significant difference ( χ2 = 1.023, P = 0.312).Multivariate logistic regression identified a delay of more than seven days from injury to surgery as a risk factor for poor visual recovery in TON patients [odds ratio = 8.515, 95% confidence interval (1.647, 44.032), P=0.011].Other factors, including age, gender, orbital and optic canal fractures, ethmoid / sphenoid sinus hemorrhage, surgical approach, and optic nerve sheath fenestration, did not significantly correlate with visual outcomes (all P >0.05).

Conclusions

Endoscopic endonasal and microsurgical transcranial approaches are equally effective in improving visual acuity in TON patients.However, the endoscopic endonasal approach offers a distinct advantage in terms of minimal invasiveness.Early surgical intervention is important for TON patients who meet surgical indications.

表1 EEOCD 组与MTOCD 组TON 患者的基线资料比较
图1 EEOCD 治疗TON 患者典型病例 注:EEOCD.内镜下经鼻视神经管减压术;TON.外伤性视神经病变;OC.视神经管;LOCR(黑色箭头所示).外侧视神经颈内动脉凹陷;Clin.car.床突段颈内动脉;SI.鞍底;CR.斜坡凹陷;图中患者为男性,33 岁,钝物砸伤右额眶部后右眼视力光感2 周,全身麻醉下行EEOCD;a、b 图显示术前轴位和冠状位CT 示右侧视神经管内下壁骨折(a 图中的白色箭头示右筛窦积血及右眶内侧壁骨折,b 图中的白色箭头示右侧视神经管内的视神经,a、b 中的黄色箭头示右侧视神经管骨折处);c 图为术中内镜经鼻视角下骨性视神经管磨开减压前,确认OC、LOCR、Clin.car、SI 等解剖标记;d、e 图显示术后轴位和冠状位CT 示右侧视神经管内下壁已磨除减压(黄色箭头所示);f 图为术中内镜经鼻视角下,骨性视神经管已磨开,管内视神经得到充分减压
图2 MTOCD 治疗TON 患者典型病例 注:MTOCD.显微镜经颅视神经管减压术;TON.外伤性视神经病变;CN II.视神经;Car.A.颈内动脉;图中患者为男性,23 岁,高处坠落伤后右眼无光感3 d,全身麻醉下行经翼点入路MTOCD;a、b 图显示术前轴位、冠状位CT 示右侧视神经管骨折(黄色箭头所示);c图术前矢状位CT 示蝶窦顶壁骨折(黄色箭头所示)伴蝶窦积血;d ~f图为术后轴位、冠状位CT 及头颅CT 三维重建示右侧骨性视神经管已磨开减压(白色箭头所示);g 图为术中右侧视神经管磨开减压前,可见右侧前床突处淤血的硬脑膜(白色箭头所示)、CN II 及Car.A;h图为术中右侧视神经管磨开减压后,可见被视神经管碎骨片挫伤的右侧视神经(白色箭头所示)、剪开的镰状韧带(黑色箭头所示)、剪开的视神经鞘膜(黄色箭头所示)
表2 EEOCD 组与MTOCD 组TON 患者手术时间和出血量、住院天数比较( ±s)
表3 Logistic 回归分析TON 患者术后视力无改善的危险因素
1
Karimi S, Arabi A, Ansari I, et al.A systematic literature review on traumatic optic neuropathy [J].J Ophthalmol, 2021 (2021): 5553885.
2
高昕,沈秀兰,干彩琴,等.失效模式与效应分析模式结合全方位多角度急诊护理在重型颅脑损伤患者急救中的应用[J/CD].中华危重症医学杂志(电子版),2023,16(3):261-264.
3
中华医学会眼科学分会神经眼科学组.我国外伤性视神经病变内镜下经鼻视神经管减压术专家共识(2016 年)[J].中华眼科杂志,2016,52(12):889-893.
4
Ma YJ, Yu B, Tu YH, et al.Prognostic factors of trans-ethmosphenoid optic canal decompression for indirect traumatic optic neuropathy [J].Int J Ophthalmol, 2018, 11 (7): 1222-1226.
5
苏家豪,林少华,王辉,等.开颅视神经减压术与内镜下视神经减压术疗效的Meta 分析[J].中国现代医学杂志,2018,28(27):64-70.
6
Huang J, Chen X, Wang Z, et al.Selection and prognosis of optic canal decompression for traumatic optic neuropathy [J].World Neurosurg, 2020 (138): e564-e578.
7
Lai IL, Liao HT.Risk factor analysis for the outcomes of indirect traumatic optic neuropathy with no light perception at initial visual acuity testing [J].World Neurosurg, 2018 (15): e620-e628.
8
石祥恩,王忠诚,杨俊,等.手术治疗间接性视神经损伤19 例[J].中华创伤杂志,2000,16(11):672-674.
9
Chan T, Friedman DS, Bradley C, et al.Estimates of incidence and prevalence of visual impairment, low vision, and blindness in the United States [J].JAMA Ophthalmol, 2018, 136 (1): 12-19.
10
Strangio A, Bourque JM, Coté M, et al.How I do itendoscopic endonasal optic nerve decompression for traumatic optic nerve neuropathy [J].Acta Neurochir(Wien), 2024, 166 (1): 446.
11
Lin J, Hu W, Wu Q, et al.An evolving perspective of endoscopic transnasal optic canal decompression for traumatic optic neuropathy in clinic [J].Neurosurg Rev, 2021, 44 (1): 19-27.
12
Liao C, Li S, Ouyang H, et al.Optic nerve decompression through pterional and supraorbital approaches in the treatment of severe traumatic optic neuropathy[J].Neurosurg Rev, 2024, 47 (1): 306.
13
初君盛,李光旭,杨理坤,等.经颅硬膜下视神经管减压术治疗创伤性视神经损伤 [J].中华神经外科杂志,2018,34(8):820-823.
14
Mesquita Filho PM, Prevedello DM, Prevedello LM, et al.Optic canal decompression: comparison of 2 surgical techniques [J].World Neurosurg, 2017 (104):745-751.
15
傅继弟,宋维贤,张家亮.经鼻腔内窥镜视神经管减压术[J].中华医学杂志,2005,85(44):3123-3125.
16
Zhao X, Jin M, Xie X, et al.Vision improvement in indirect traumatic optic neuropathy treated by endoscopic transnasal optic canal decompression[J].Am J Otolaryngol, 2022, 43 (3): 103453.
17
Abhinav K, Acosta Y, Wang WH, et al.Endoscopic endonasal approach to the optic canal: anatomic considerations and surgical relevance[J].Neurosurgery,2015 (11 Suppl 3): 431-445.
18
赵朝辉,钟兴明,汪一棋,等.眶上外侧入路视神经管减压术治疗创伤性视神经损伤的疗效[J].中华创伤杂志,2020,36(6):531-535.
19
Yu B, Ma Y, Tu Y, et al.The outcome of endoscopic transethmosphenoid optic canal decompression for indirect traumatic optic neuropathy with no-lightperception[J].J Ophthalmol, 2016 (2016): 6492858.
20
Dhaliwal SS, Sowerby LJ, Rotenberg BW.Timing of endoscopic surgical decompression in traumatic optic neuropathy: a systematic review of the literature[J].Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, 2016, 6 (6): 661-667.
21
李新宇,杨西涛,郭智霖.全方位视神经管减压治疗无光感外伤性视神经损伤的疗效 [J].解放军医学杂志,2024,49(2):177-181.
[1] 王美娣, 王俊, 张艳, 吴珠娟, 严永兴, 刘慧丽. 急性带状疱疹患者并发中枢神经系统感染的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 458-464.
[2] 黄鸿初, 黄美容, 温丽红. 血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗后粒细胞缺乏感染的危险因素和风险预测模型[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 285-292.
[3] 罗文斌, 韩玮. 胰腺癌患者首次化疗后中重度骨髓抑制的相关危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 357-362.
[4] 贺斌, 马晋峰. 胃癌脾门淋巴结转移危险因素[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[5] 林宇腾, 延敏博, 许家榕, 黄子豪, 汤育新. 输尿管软镜手术术后住院时间的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 41-46.
[6] 林凯, 潘勇, 赵高平, 杨春. 造口还纳术后切口疝的危险因素分析与预防策略[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-638.
[7] 杨闯, 马雪. 腹壁疝术后感染的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 693-696.
[8] 谢开晶, 张迅, 王耀丽. 创伤后脓毒症:不可忽视的严重并发症[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 1048-1052.
[9] 曾忠平, 张任玲, 刘静, 张天莎, 艾美梅, 张朋勃. 恶性肿瘤伴急性呼吸衰竭行有创机械通气危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 991-994.
[10] 余承澍, 刘红枝, 林科灿, 林起柱, 黄霆峰, 周伟平, 程张军, 楼健颖, 郑树国, 毕新宇, 王剑明, 郭伟, 李富宇, 王坚, 郑亚民, 李敬东, 程石, 曾永毅. 肝内胆管细胞癌术后极早期复发的危险因素[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 53-59.
[11] 颜世锐, 熊辉. 感染性心内膜炎合并急性肾损伤患者的危险因素探索及死亡风险预测[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
[12] 李文哲, 王毅, 崔建, 郑启航, 王靖彦, 于湘友. 新疆维吾尔自治区重症患者急性肾功能异常的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 269-276.
[13] 吴婷婷, 张薇, 何雅琪, 沈海清, 路敬叶, 张艳. 老年缺血性脑卒中患者早发型卒中后认知障碍发生情况及其影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 573-579.
[14] 刘志超, 胡风云, 温春丽. 山西省脑卒中危险因素与地域的相关性分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 424-433.
[15] 曹亚丽, 高雨萌, 张英谦, 李博, 杜军保, 金红芳. 儿童坐位不耐受的临床进展[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 510-515.
阅读次数
全文


摘要