World neurosurgery · 2024
Endoscopic Surgery Versus Stereotactic Aspiration in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yang Linjing, Yang Mi, He Mingfeng, Zhou Xi, Zhou Zhiming
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic surgery (ES) and stereotactic aspiration (SA) in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH).
METHODS: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 31, 2023. Studies comparing ES and SA for sICH treatment were also included. Outcome measures included primary outcomes (mortality and good functional outcome [GFO]) and secondary outcomes (evacuation rate, residual hematoma, perihematomal edema (PHE), operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay duration, intensive care unit stay duration, hospital cost, complications, and reoperation). Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of age, hematoma volume, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and time to surgery on the outcomes.
RESULTS: Nine studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 8 observational studies) with 2105 patients (705 and 1400 in the ES and SA groups, respectively) were included in this meta-analysis. The final analysis indicated that compared with SA, ES was associated with enhanced GFO and a higher evacuation rate 1 day post-surgery along with reduced mortality and residual hematoma. Conversely, ES did not confer benefits in terms of perihematomal edema, operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, or hospital stay duration compared with SA. Subgroup analysis highlighted the significant influences of age and hematoma volume on mortality, whereas hematoma volume and Glasgow Coma Scale score affected GFO.
CONCLUSIONS: ES is a safe and effective approach for sICH treatment, leading to improved patient prognosis and quality of life compared to SA.
METHODS: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 31, 2023. Studies comparing ES and SA for sICH treatment were also included. Outcome measures included primary outcomes (mortality and good functional outcome [GFO]) and secondary outcomes (evacuation rate, residual hematoma, perihematomal edema (PHE), operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay duration, intensive care unit stay duration, hospital cost, complications, and reoperation). Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of age, hematoma volume, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and time to surgery on the outcomes.
RESULTS: Nine studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 8 observational studies) with 2105 patients (705 and 1400 in the ES and SA groups, respectively) were included in this meta-analysis. The final analysis indicated that compared with SA, ES was associated with enhanced GFO and a higher evacuation rate 1 day post-surgery along with reduced mortality and residual hematoma. Conversely, ES did not confer benefits in terms of perihematomal edema, operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, or hospital stay duration compared with SA. Subgroup analysis highlighted the significant influences of age and hematoma volume on mortality, whereas hematoma volume and Glasgow Coma Scale score affected GFO.
CONCLUSIONS: ES is a safe and effective approach for sICH treatment, leading to improved patient prognosis and quality of life compared to SA.