Stroke · 2016
Preventive Suboccipital Decompressive Craniectomy for Cerebellar Infarction: A Retrospective-Matched Case-Control Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kim Myeong Jin, Park Sang Kyu, Song Jihye, Oh Se-Yang, Lim Yong Cheol, Sim Sook Yong, Shin Yong Sam, Chung Joonho
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No evidence is available on the benefits of preventive suboccipital decompressive craniectomy (SDC) for patients with cerebellar infarction. The purpose of this matched case-control study was to investigate whether preventive SDC was associated with good clinical outcomes in patients with cerebellar infarction and to evaluate its predisposing factors.
METHODS: Between March 2007 and September 2015, 28 patients underwent preventive SDC. We performed propensity score matching to establish a proper control group among 721 patients with cerebellar infarction during the same period. Group A (n=28) consists of those who underwent preventive SDC, and group B (n=56) consists of those who did not undergo preventive SDC. We analyzed and compared clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were better in group A than in group B at discharge (P=0.048) and 12-month follow-up (P=0.030). Group B had more deaths within 12 months than group A (log-rank, P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that preventive SDC (odds ratio, 4.815; P=0.009) and the absence of brain stem infarction (odds ratio, 2.862; P=0.033) were independently associated with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2) at 12-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Favorable clinical outcomes including overall survival can be expected after preventive SDC in patients with a volume ratio between 0.25 and 0.33 and the absence of brain stem infarction. Among these patients, preventive SDC might be better than the best medical treatment alone.
METHODS: Between March 2007 and September 2015, 28 patients underwent preventive SDC. We performed propensity score matching to establish a proper control group among 721 patients with cerebellar infarction during the same period. Group A (n=28) consists of those who underwent preventive SDC, and group B (n=56) consists of those who did not undergo preventive SDC. We analyzed and compared clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were better in group A than in group B at discharge (P=0.048) and 12-month follow-up (P=0.030). Group B had more deaths within 12 months than group A (log-rank, P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that preventive SDC (odds ratio, 4.815; P=0.009) and the absence of brain stem infarction (odds ratio, 2.862; P=0.033) were independently associated with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2) at 12-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Favorable clinical outcomes including overall survival can be expected after preventive SDC in patients with a volume ratio between 0.25 and 0.33 and the absence of brain stem infarction. Among these patients, preventive SDC might be better than the best medical treatment alone.