目的 分析术前分流术治疗脑肿瘤合并脑积水的临床效果。方法 将80例脑部肿瘤合并脑积水患者随机分为对照组(38例)和实验组(42例),对照组应用反复腰椎穿刺放液,实验组根据病情行脑室-腹腔分流术。观察2组颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白浓度、疗效、住院时间及并发症发生情况。结果 实验组总有效率显著高于对照组,并发症发生率低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);分流术后7 d、14 d颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白浓度较术前明显降低,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组住院时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 术前分流术可提高脑肿瘤合并脑积水患者耐受性,缓解颅内高压,有效改善临床症状,降低围手术期并发症发生率。
术前分流术治疗脑肿瘤合并脑积水临床分析
刘永生 申明峰
商丘市第一人民医院神经外科,河南 商丘 476100
作者简介:刘永生,Email:13592301315@163.com
【摘要】 目的 分析术前分流术治疗脑肿瘤合并脑积水的临床效果。方法 将80例脑部肿瘤合并脑积水患者随机分为对照组(38例)和实验组(42例),对照组应用反复腰椎穿刺放液,实验组根据病情行脑室-腹腔分流术。观察2组颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白浓度、疗效、住院时间及并发症发生情况。结果 实验组总有效率显著高于对照组,并发症发生率低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);分流术后7 d、14 d颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白浓度较术前明显降低,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组住院时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 术前分流术可提高脑肿瘤合并脑积水患者耐受性,缓解颅内高压,有效改善临床症状,降低围手术期并发症发生率。
【关键词】 脑肿瘤;脑积水;脑室-腹腔分流术;颅内高压;SP100蛋白;围手术期
【中图分类号】 R742.7 【文献标识码】 A 【文章编号】 1673-5110(2019)02-0176-07 DOI:10.12083/SYSJ.2019.02.034
Analysis of preoperative shunt treatment in patients with brain tumor combined with hydrocephalus
LIU Yongsheng,SHEN Mingfeng
Department of Neurosurgery,the First People's Hospital of Shangqiu,Shangqiu 476100,China
【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the curative effect of shunt treatment of brain tumors in patients with hydrocephalus.Methods 80 cases of patients with brain tumor combined with hydrocephaluswere randomly divided into experimental group (42 cases) and control group (38 cases),control group was given repeated lumbar paracentesis,experimental group was given ventriculo-peritoneal shunt according to patients'condition.The intracranial pressure,cerebrospinal fluid SP100 protein concentration,patient efficacy,hospitalization time and complicationsoftwo groups were observed.Results The total effective rate in shunt group was significantly higher than that of control group,the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05);at 7d and 14d post-shunt,fund intracranial pressure and the concentration of SP100 protein in CSF decreased significantly,there were obvious advantages compared with the control group(P<0.05);the hospitalization of two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion Preoperative shunt can improve preoperative tolerance of patients with brain tumor combined and hydrocephalus,relieve preoperative intracranial hypertension,effectively improve clinical symptoms,and reduce the incidence of perioperative complications.It is an effective way of auxiliary operation.
【Key words】 Brain tumor;Hydrocephalus;Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt;Intracranial hypertension;SP100 protein;Perioperative period
脑肿瘤又称颅内肿瘤,病因不明确,是神经系统中常见的疾病,危害人类健康[1-3]。原发性脑肿瘤源于颅内各种组织,如脑膜、脑组织、脑神经、血管参与的胚胎组织等[4-5]。继发性肿瘤通常是身体其他部位的恶性肿瘤转移至颅内或由颅外肿瘤浸润生长侵入颅内而形成。特殊部位的脑肿瘤常导致颅内积水,引起颅内压急性或慢性增高[6-9]。对于此类患者来说,术前积极处理脑积水对提高患者手术耐受性及预后至关重要。
脑积水导致颅内压增高,增加脑疝发生的概率,尤其儿童,可导致神经功能障碍、认知功能障碍、精神异常、智力降低,影响学习和成长,严重时可危及生命,因此需积极治疗。分流术被用于各类病因引起的脑积水,不仅能有效改善临床症状,且并发症较低,包括脑室-脑池分流、脑室-腹腔分流、脑室-胸腔分流、脑室-心房分流等分流术[10],其中最常见的是脑室-腹腔分流术(ventriculo-peritoneal shunt,VPS),可应用于梗阻性脑积水、交通性脑积水、正常颅内压性脑积水。研究表明,VPS可有效改善脑肿瘤合并脑积水患者的临床症状,缓解术前高颅压的症状,降低术中、术后的风险,有效抑制脑部结构和功能继续受损[11],改善认知功能[12-13],提高临床治疗效果,同时能明显减少住院时间。本研究分析脑肿瘤合并脑积水患者应用分流术治疗的效果。
1 资料与方法
1.1 一般资料 收集2015-07—2016-12商丘市第一人民医院神经外科治疗的80例脑肿瘤合并脑积水患者,男50例,女30例,年龄 10~71岁,中位年龄45.5岁。临床表现:均有不同程度头痛、呕吐、视乳头水肿等颅高压症状;均未进行肿瘤手术;签署知情同意书,并经院医学伦理委员会批准。所有患者行CT及MRI检查(图1),肿瘤直径1.0~5.8 cm,中脑导水管或室间孔、第四脑室出口狭窄或阻塞,腰穿脑脊液压力明显升高。排除标准:颅内感染尚未控制者;腹腔有炎症或腹水者;脑脊液蛋白量>800 mg/L;颅内有新鲜出血者;头颈部或胸部皮肤有感染者;重要脏器功能衰竭,特别是近半年有心力衰竭、心肌梗死事件者。
80例患者随机分为对照组38例和实验组42例。对照组男22例,女16例;年龄22~71岁(45.26±2.31)岁;其中松果体胶质区瘤25例,室间孔区胶质瘤13例。实验组男31例,女11例;年龄20~68(44.97±2.25)岁;其中松果体胶质区瘤21例,侧脑室海绵状血管瘤3例,室间孔区胶质瘤12例,鞍区颅咽管瘤3例,听神经瘤、脊索瘤、脑膜瘤各1例。2组基线资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。
1.2 治疗方法 对照组入院后行腰椎穿刺间断缓慢引流脑脊液,1次/d,平均每次引流量30 mL。实验组入院后根据病情选择VPS(图2~3),脑室穿刺位置根据颅内肿瘤位置不同可选择额角或枕角、三角区,然后建立皮下隧道,经腹直肌切口将腹腔导管置于肝脏膈面或盆腔,固定导管,缝合腹膜与腹壁。分流管阀门压力设置为13 cmH2O。
1.3 观察指标及疗效判断 观察2组颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白浓度、疗效、住院时间及并发症发生情况。头痛、呕吐等临床症状明显缓解,脑室系统较前缩小,脑脊液压力明显降低,脑脊液SP100蛋白明显降低为治疗有效,否则无效。
1.4 统计学方法 采用SPSS 13.0统计软件分析数据,计量资料以均数±标准差(x±s)表示,采用t检验,计数资料以百分位数(%)表示,采用χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
2.1 2组疗效对比 实验组总有效率显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组4例治疗无效,均为肥胖者,可能与分流导管腹腔端容易堵塞有关(表1)。
图1 A:术前头颅CT检查松果体区巨大占位,等密度,脑室系统扩大;B:术前头颅MRI增强检查提示松果体区类圆形占位,不规则强化,挤压中脑导水管,幕上脑室扩大
Figure 1 A:Preoperative cranial CT examination of the pineal region with large mass,isodensity,and enlargement of the ventricular system;B:Preoperative cranial MRI enhanced examination showed that the pineal region had a circular area,irregular enhancement,compression of the aqueduct of the midbrain,and enlargement of the supratentorial ventricle
2.2 2组观察指标对比 2组治疗后颅内压及脑脊液SP100蛋白均明显下降,治疗后14 d比治疗后7 d更加显著;实验组治疗后颅内压、脑脊液SP100蛋白下降更明显,治疗效果明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表2~3。2组住院时间无明显差异(P>0.05),实验组并发症发生率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。见表4。
图2 术前行VPS,脑室缩小
Figure 2 VPS was performed before operation,ventricular contraction
图3 松果体肿瘤术后复查头颅CT表现
Figure 3 CT findings of pineal tumors after operation
表1 2组疗效对比 [n(%)]
Table 1 Comparison of curative effects of two groups [n(%)]
组别 |
n |
有效 |
无效 |
对照组 |
38 |
28(73.68) |
10(26.32) |
实验组 |
42 |
38(92.58)* |
4(7.42) |
注:与对照组相比,*P<0.05
表2 2组颅内压变化情况比较 (x±s,mmH2O)
Table 2 Comparison of intracranial pressure between two groups (x±s,mmH2O)
组别 |
n |
颅内压 |
治疗前 |
治疗后7 d |
治疗后14 d |
对照组 |
38 |
305.5±28.2 |
231.4±26.3* |
188.8±14.1* |
实验组 |
42 |
293.4±29.3 |
201.2±21.2*# |
141.3±16.4*# |
注:与治疗前相比,*P<0.05;与对照组相比,#P<0.05
表3 2组脑脊液SP100蛋白水平比较 (x±s,μg/L)
Table 3 Comparison of SP100 protein levels in cerebrospinal fluid of two groups (x±s,μg/L)
组别 |
n |
脑脊液SP100蛋白水平 |
治疗前 |
治疗后7 d |
治疗后14 d |
对照组 |
38 |
0.98±0.14 |
0.33±0.11* |
0.10±0.02* |
实验组 |
42 |
0.89±0.19 |
0.42±0.14*# |
0.14±0.05*# |
注:与治疗前相比,*P<0.05;与对照组相比,#P<0.05
表4 2组住院时间及并发症比较
Table 4 Comparison of hospitalization time and complications between two groups
组别 |
n |
住院时间(x±s,d) |
并发症发生率[n(%)] |
对照组 |
38 |
8.9±0.5 |
6(15.79) |
实验组 |
42 |
9.1±0.4* |
1(2.38)# |
注:与对照组相比,*P>0.05;与对照组相比,#P<0.05
3 讨论
颅内肿瘤,尤其特殊位置的肿瘤,如室间孔区的胶质瘤及侧脑室海绵状血管瘤、鞍区长入第三脑室的颅咽管瘤及垂体瘤、松果体区的生殖细胞瘤及胶质瘤、小脑引部的肿瘤,以及桥小脑角区巨大肿瘤等,容易挤压第三、四脑室或中脑导水管,使其逐步狭窄,甚至闭塞,阻断或延缓脑脊液流入蛛网膜下腔,引起慢性梗阻性脑积水[14]。随着颅内压力进一步增高,脑脊液受颅内压增高负反馈影响可以减少分泌,一旦脑脊液代偿功能接近衰竭,脑干受到严重挤压,患者临床症状往往迅速加重,导致病情迅速恶化,甚至丧失手术治疗的机会。因此,术前如何有效降低颅内压是外科治疗此类患者时需要重点关注的问题[15]。
脑室锥颅外引流术、腰椎穿刺释放脑脊液及VPS等均可降低颅内压,使患者手术耐受性增加,临床症状改善,延缓脑干功能受损,降低围手术期的风险,提高手术治疗效果[16]。锥颅外引流术为紧急情况下采取的临时性抢救措施,可迅速降低颅内压,缺点是脑脊液流速不易控制,不能与脑脊液分泌维持在平衡的状态,流速过快易引起脑组织逆向脑疝,严重时可引起昏迷或危及生命,且留管时间有一定的限制,超过1周易并发外源性感染,且后期部分患者若脑瘤术后脑积水得不到缓解仍需行VPS,故限制了其临床广泛使用[17]。在颅内压增高的情况下,间断腰椎穿刺释放脑脊液有一定的风险性,一旦突发脑疝,导致颅内压一天中波动较大,促进了脑脊液的分泌,患者临床症状短暂缓解后仍会逐步加重,反复应用此法也增加了椎管内及颅内感染的机会;另外,昏迷和小儿患者配合较差,临床应用不多。
VPS是将一端分流管植入脑室,另一端植入腹腔,将侧脑室中的脑脊液引流出来,排入腹腔中以便腹膜吸收,其优势是一次性创伤操作,可长时间缓解颅内高压,由于分流阀的抗虹吸作用,可使颅内压处于一个相对平稳的较低状态,特别是可调压分流阀的应用,可根据患者的临床症状及影像资料随时调整压力,使之更适应颅内压力的变化,明显增加患者术前的手术耐受性。由于大部分脑肿瘤患者的脑脊液生化性质正常,未合并脑出血或感染,故属于VPS手术的适应证,可直接进行分流术。对于特发性正常颅内压患者,根据其典型的临床症状,目前主要治疗手段仍然是VPS[18]。VPS由于操作相对简单、风险小、用时短、效果相对可靠,在过去的几十年中一直作为脑积水的主要手术方法。1905年由KAUSCH首次开展,当时由于历史条件所限,并不被看好。直到JACKSON教授报道该手术有一定疗效,再加上脑室-心房分流术并发症较严重,VPS才逐步被大家重视并广泛采用。
研究报道VPS有导致中枢神经系统肿瘤腹腔扩散的可能,但并没有数据直接表明VPS是腹膜播种的危险因素[19-21]。一项研究通过比较脑肿瘤患者在应用或不应用VPS术后腹腔播散的肿瘤数量发现,两者并无显著差别[22];另有研究证明,应用或不应用VPS术式,脑肿瘤患者出现身体其他部位转移的肿瘤数量基本相同[23-25]。对于一些特殊类型脑积水及特殊部位的脑部肿瘤,有报道行内镜下第三脑室终板造瘘术(endoscopic third ventriculostomy,ETV)结合VPS可明显增加分流效果,治疗梗阻性脑积水更有效[26-28],拓宽了该术式的适应证[22]。当肿瘤造成脑桥前池或鞍上池狭窄时,终板造瘘操作困难甚至存在一定的风险[23]。
本研究表明,应用VPS后69%的患者颅内高压症状有明显好转,且操作简单、创伤小,是治疗脑积水的主要方式,患者临床症状不同程度改善,并发症少。研究表明[29-32],部分颅内肿瘤切除后虽然解除了对脑脊液循环通道的压迫,可脑积水并未缓解甚至加重,考虑为肿瘤长期压迫导致通道处粘连闭塞,术后血性脑脊液导致蛛网膜下腔粘连、闭塞以及蛛网膜颗粒吸收脑脊液障碍等综合因素引起。故有学者[33-36]建议,VPS应作为松果体肿瘤合并脑积水患者治疗的第一步措施。SP100蛋白可反映脑组织受损的程度,具有较高的特异性,脑脊液中SP100蛋白浓度在中枢神经受损的同时也会相应增高。本研究表明,实验组经治疗后症状有明显改善,虽然住院时间并未明显减少,但治疗后第7、14天脑脊液SP100蛋白及颅内压明显降低,时间越长,下降越明显,因此认为术前VPS对于脑肿瘤并发脑积水患者是一种有效的辅助治疗方式。
为进一步降低VPS带来的引流失常、堵塞或感染等并发症,需要注意以下4个方面:(1)初次植入可调压分流管时阀门压力先适当调高一点,避免引流过量,然后再根据患者临床症状改善的程度及复查的影像资料,逐步调低阀门压力阈值,降低因引流过度带来的脑疝急症风险;(2)定期按压分流泵,以免腹腔端口堵塞,术后禁食,在肠鸣音恢复、肛门排气后进食;(3)二期进行脑室内肿瘤切除时,为避免血性脑脊液堵塞分流管,可预先将阀门压力阈值调至最高(此时分流管不引流脑脊液),术后脑室放置外引流管,待血性脑脊液引流干净后拔除外引流管,根据复查脑室的变化,再适时开放分流管;(4)术中严格消毒,护皮膜保护裸露的皮肤,尽量减少皮肤切口(2个切口),尽量不直接接触分流管,缝合皮肤切口时再次消毒切口缘皮肤,减少一切可能引起感染的因素。因此,对于脑肿瘤引起的脑积水患者,术前采用VPS可以有效缓解颅内高压,提高手术耐受性,降低围手术期风险,明显改善临床症状,为肿瘤切除做好充分的准备。
4 参考文献
[1] DAKURAH T K,ADAMS F,IDDRISSU M,et al.Management of Hydrocephalus with Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts:Review of 109 Cases of Children[J].World Neurosurg,2016,96:129-135.DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.111.
[2] GLIEMROTH J,KSBECK E,KEHLER U.Ventriculocisternostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus:a retrospective,long-term observational study[J].Clin Neurol Neurosurg,2014,122:92-96.DOI:10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.03.022.
[3] HUSSAIN Z,GHAFFAR A,QASMI S A,et al.Experience of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt insertion in late presenting congenital hydrocephalus[J].J Pak Med Assoc,2016,66(4):57-60.
[4] MIYAJIMA M,KAZUI H,MORI E,et al.One-year outcome in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus:comparison of lumboperitoneal shunt to ventri-culoperitoneal shunt[J].J Neurosurg,2016,34(5):1-10.
[5] BREIMER G E,HAJI F A,HOVING E W,et al.Development and content validation of performance assessments for endoscopic third ventriculostomy[J].Childs Nerv Syst,2015,31(8):1 247-1 259.DOI:10.1007/s00381-015-2716-4.
[6] HUNG A L,MORAN D,VAKILI S,et al.Predictors of ventriculoperitoneal shunt revision in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus[J].World Neurosurg,2016,90(6):76-81.
[7] SCHUCHT P,BANZ V,TROCHSLER M,et al.Laparoscopically assisted ventriculoperitonealshunt placement:a prospective randomized controlled trial[J].J Neurosurg,2015,122(5):1 058-1 067.
[8] SAEHLE T,FARAHMAND D,EIDE P K,et al.A randomized controlleddual-center trial on shunt complications in idiopathic normal-pressurehydrocephalus treated with gradually reduced or ”fixed” pressure valve settings[J].J Neurosurg,2014,121(5):1 257-1 263.
[9] FARAHMAND D,QVARLANDER S,MALM J,et al.Intracranial pressure in hydrocephalus:impact of shunt adjustments and body positions[J].J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry,2015,86(2):222-228.
[10] LIU L,ZHANG R,TANG Y,et al.The use of ventriculoperitoneal shunts for uncontrollable intracranial hypertension in patients with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis with or without hydrocephalus[J].Biosci Trends,2014,8(6):327-332.DOI:10.5582/bst.2014.01070.
[11] YU H,YANG M,ZHAN X,et al.Ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in poor-grade patients with chronic normal pressure hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage[J].Brain Inj,2016,30(1):74-78.DOI:10.3109/02699052.2015.1075153.
[12] SYMSS N P,OI S.Is there an ideal shunt? A panoramic view of 110 years in CSF diversions and shunt systems used for the treatment of hydrocephalus:from historical events to current trends[J].Childs Nerv Syst,2015,31(2):191-202.DOI:10.1007/s00381-014-2608-z.
[13] ZOLAL A,JURATLI T,DENGL M,et al.Daily drained CSF volume is a predictor for shunt dependence-A retrospective study[J].Clin Neurol Neurosurg,2015,138:147-150.DOI:10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.021.
[14] MAHANEY K B,CHALOUHI N,VILJOEN S,et al.Risk of hemorrhagic complication associated with ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients on dual antiplatelet therapy[J].J Neurosurg,2013,119(4):937-942.DOI:10.3171/2013.5.JNS122494.
[15] 冯书彬,齐林,吕强,等.三脑室底造瘘术和脑室腹腔分流术治疗儿童脑积水疗效分析[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志,2017,20(24):70-74.
[16] MEIER U,STENGEL D,MULLER C,et al.Predictors of subsequent overdrainage and clinical outcomes after ventriculoperitoneal shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus[J].J Neurosurg,2013,73(6):1 054-1 060.
[17] WEIL A G,FALLAH A,CHAMIRAJU P,et al.Endoscopic thirdventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization with a rigid neuroendoscope ininfants with hydrocephalus[J].J Neurosurg Pediatr,2016,17(2):163-173.DOI:10.3171/2015.5.PEDS14692.
[18] RIVA-CAMBRIN J,KESTLE J R,HOLUBKOV R,et al.Risk factors for shunt malfunction in pediatric hydrocephalus:a multicenter prospective cohort study[J].J Neurosurg Pedi,2016,17(4):1-9.
[19] EASTWOOD K W,LOOI T,NAGUIB H E,et al.Design optimization ofneuroendoscopic continuum instruments for third ventriculostomy and tumor biopsy[J].Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc,2015,2015:4 853-4 856.DOI:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319480.
[20] RAJU S,RAMESH S.Endoscopic third ventriculos-tomy through lamina terminalis:Afeasible alternative to standard endoscopic third ventriculostomy[J].Neurol India,2016,64(1):75-80.DOI:10.4103/0028-3886.173655.
[21] ADIB S D,BISDAS S,BORNEMANN A,et al.Neuroendoscopic Trans-ThirdVentricular Approach for Surgical Management of Ecchordosis Physaliphora[J].World Neurosurg,2016,90:701.e1-701.e6.DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.041.
[22] DONG G Y,CHUN W U,TING Y U,et al.Clinical analysis of ventriculo-peritoneal shunt in the treatment of patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus[J].J Chin Foreign Med Res,2016,134(5):145-148.
[23] DEMERDASH A,ROCQUE B G,JOHNSTON J,et al.Endoscopic third ventriculostomy:A historical review[J].Br J Neurosurg,2017,31(1):28-32.DOI:10.1080/02688697.2016.1245848.
[24] KLINGE P,HELLSTROM P,TANS J,et al.One-year outcome in the europeanmulticentre study on inph[J].Acta Neurol Scand,2012,126(3):145-153.
[25] CAI Q,ZHANG X,WANG L,et al.Keyhole approach in theneuroendoscopic treatment for hydrocephalus[J].Medicine (Baltimore),2017,96(1):e5823.DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000005823.
[26] SO T,INOUE M,CHIKAISHI Y,et al.Gefitinib and a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt to manage carcinomatous meningitis from non-small-cell lung cancer:report of two cases[J].Surg Today,2009,39(7):598-602.doi:10.1007/s00595-008-3909-1.
[27] RAY P,JALLO G I,KIM R Y,et al.Endoscopic third ventriculostomy for tumor-related hydrocephalus in a pediatric population[J].Neurosurg Focus,2005,19(6):E8.
[28] PENG J,DENG X,HE F,et al.Role of ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery in grade IV tubercular meningitis with hydrocephalus[J].Childs Nerv Syst,2012,28(2):209-215.doi:10.1007/s00381-011-1572-0.
[29] KIM I Y,JUNG S,MOON K S,et al.Neuronavigation-guided endoscopic surgery for pineal tumors with hydrocephalus.[J].J Mini Invasive Neurosurg,2005,47(6):365-368.
[30] KUMAR A,SINGH K,SHARMA V.Surgery in hydrocephalus of tubercular origin:challenges and management[J].Acta Neurochir (Wien),2013,155(5):869-873.doi:10.1007/s00701-013-1658-4.
[31] CELIK A,ERGÜN O,ARDA M S,et al.The incidence of inguinal complications after ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus[J].Childs Nerv Syst,2005,21(1):44-47.
[32] VUI H C,LIM W C,LAW H L,et al.Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with ventriculoperitoneal shunt[J].Med J Malaysia,2013,68(5):389-392.
[33] CHUEN-IM P,SMYTH M D,SEGURA B,et al.Recurrent pleural effusion without intrathoracic migration of ventriculoperitoneal shunt catheter:a case report[J].Pediatr Pulmonol,2012,47(1):91-95.doi:10.1002/ppul.21510.
[34] KOLIC Z,KUKULJAN M,BONIFACIC D,et al.CSF liver pseudocyst as a complication of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt[J].Wien Klin Wochenschr,2010,122(21/22):641-4.doi:10.1007/s00508-010-1474-2.
[35] MARTNEZ-LAGE J F,GUILLÉN-NAVARRO E,ALMAGRO M J,et al.Hydrocephalus and Chiari type 1 malformation in macrocephaly-cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita:a case-based update[J].Childs Nerv Syst,2010,26(1):13-18.doi:10.1007/s00381-009-0972-x.
[36] LAI L P,EGNOR M R,CARRION W V,et al.Ventricular peritoneal shunt malfunction after operative correction of scoliosis:report of three cases[J].Spine J,2014,14(11):e5-e8.doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.08.448.
(收稿2018-04-10)
本文责编:夏保军
本文引用信息:刘永生,申明峰.术前分流术治疗脑肿瘤合并脑积水临床分析[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志,2019,22(2):176-182.DOI:10.12083/SYSJ.2019.02.034
Reference information:LIU Yongsheng,SHEN Mingfeng.Analysis of preoperative shunt treatment in patients with brain tumor combined with hydrocephalus[J].Chinese Journal of Practical Nervous Diseases,2019,22(2):176-182.DOI:10.12083/SYSJ.2019.02.034