World neurosurgery · 2023
Neuroendoscopic Technique for Septated Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Biao, Wan Jinxin, Li Qingla, Wang Hongwei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of neuroendoscopic hematoma evacuation (NHE) and burr hole craniotomy (BHC) for treating septated chronic subdural hematoma (sCSDH) and analyze the technical advantages of NHE in sCSDH treatment by data analysis.
METHODS: This study recruited 77 patients with sCSDH According to the type of operation, the patients were divided into NHE (n = 45) or BHC (n = 32) groups. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of NHE and BHC for treating sCSDH.
RESULTS: NHE demonstrated higher complete hematoma clearance and postoperative midline recovery rates and shorter subdural drainage and postoperative bed rest durations compared with BHC (P < 0.05). The average NHE time (72.27 ± 18.27 minutes) was longer than that of BHC (54.91 ± 16.04 minutes) (P < 0.05). The average follow-up period was 30.9 (range, 7-51) months. The results revealed that 1 and 12 cases recurred in the NHE (2.2%) and BHC (18.8%) groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Additionally, a statistically significant difference in the Modified Rankin Scale scores of the 2 groups was observed 6 months after the operation (P < 0.05). During the follow-up period, neither group demonstrated any obvious operative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: NHE is more effective than BHC for treating sCSDH and is worth popularizing on a large scale; however, ways to better deal with the outer membrane of hematoma warrant further consideration.
METHODS: This study recruited 77 patients with sCSDH According to the type of operation, the patients were divided into NHE (n = 45) or BHC (n = 32) groups. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of NHE and BHC for treating sCSDH.
RESULTS: NHE demonstrated higher complete hematoma clearance and postoperative midline recovery rates and shorter subdural drainage and postoperative bed rest durations compared with BHC (P < 0.05). The average NHE time (72.27 ± 18.27 minutes) was longer than that of BHC (54.91 ± 16.04 minutes) (P < 0.05). The average follow-up period was 30.9 (range, 7-51) months. The results revealed that 1 and 12 cases recurred in the NHE (2.2%) and BHC (18.8%) groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Additionally, a statistically significant difference in the Modified Rankin Scale scores of the 2 groups was observed 6 months after the operation (P < 0.05). During the follow-up period, neither group demonstrated any obvious operative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: NHE is more effective than BHC for treating sCSDH and is worth popularizing on a large scale; however, ways to better deal with the outer membrane of hematoma warrant further consideration.