World neurosurgery · 2018
Effect and Feasibility of Endoscopic Surgery in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yao Zhong, Hu Xin, You Chao, He Min
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage remains a major cause of death and dependence. Endoscopic surgery (ES) is potential to improve outcomes, but a consensus on the superiority of ES has not been achieved. We conducted a systematic review to clarify the effect of ES in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and compare it with other treatment options (craniotomy, conservation, and stereotactic aspiration [SA]).
METHODS: We performed this review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis. The subgroup analyses were stratified by study type, location, hematoma volume, interval to treatment, follow-up time, and stereotactic frame assistance.
RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included containing 1213 patients, most of whom harbored a hematoma greater than 50 mL. Compared with craniotomy and conservation, ES significantly reduced the mortality (P < 0.0001), poor outcomes (P < 0.00001), rebleeding (P = 0.0009), and pneumonia (P < 0.00001). In the subgroup analyses, late surgery (<48 hours) benefited more from ES than early surgery (<24 hours). The study location, hematoma volume, and stereotactic frame assistance insignificantly influenced the therapeutic effect of ES. Comparing ES and SA, we found that differences in mortality, poor outcomes, and rebleeding were insignificant, but ES had a greater evacuation rate and SA had shorter operative times.
CONCLUSIONS: ES achieves a better performance than craniotomy and conservation in terms of reducing mortality, dependence, and specific complications. Despite being similarly effective in improving functional outcomes, ES and SA have respective advantages. ES is a feasible alternation to craniotomy and conservation, and the comparison between ES and SA warrants further study.
METHODS: We performed this review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis. The subgroup analyses were stratified by study type, location, hematoma volume, interval to treatment, follow-up time, and stereotactic frame assistance.
RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included containing 1213 patients, most of whom harbored a hematoma greater than 50 mL. Compared with craniotomy and conservation, ES significantly reduced the mortality (P < 0.0001), poor outcomes (P < 0.00001), rebleeding (P = 0.0009), and pneumonia (P < 0.00001). In the subgroup analyses, late surgery (<48 hours) benefited more from ES than early surgery (<24 hours). The study location, hematoma volume, and stereotactic frame assistance insignificantly influenced the therapeutic effect of ES. Comparing ES and SA, we found that differences in mortality, poor outcomes, and rebleeding were insignificant, but ES had a greater evacuation rate and SA had shorter operative times.
CONCLUSIONS: ES achieves a better performance than craniotomy and conservation in terms of reducing mortality, dependence, and specific complications. Despite being similarly effective in improving functional outcomes, ES and SA have respective advantages. ES is a feasible alternation to craniotomy and conservation, and the comparison between ES and SA warrants further study.