Effectiveness of invasive interventions for chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Victor B Amaral, Rivaldo F Filho, João V Fernandes, Olavo B Neto, André S Oliveira
{"title":"Effectiveness of invasive interventions for chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review.","authors":"Victor B Amaral, Rivaldo F Filho, João V Fernandes, Olavo B Neto, André S Oliveira","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.25.06356-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a frequent neurological problem, especially in older adults. It often presents headache as a primary symptom. The optimal approach to managing CSDH through invasive treatments is still debated, with various procedures available. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, based on the most recent available literature, to assess the efficacy and safety of invasive interventions for the treatment of CSDH.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A comprehensive search of major databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines with an extensive consultation with experts that independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment. The GRADE approach and RoB 2 tool were used to assess evidence quality and risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>It was identified 4 studies (N.=579) meeting the inclusion criteria. Invasive interventions included burr hole craniostomy, twist drill craniostomy, and subdural drainage systems. Findings varied across studies. A Chinese study suggested shorter hospital stays with twist drill craniostomy compared to simple burr hole craniostomy. A Denmark study showed that the 48-hour drainage has a significantly higher volume of postoperative drain production compared to the 24-hour group. An Iranian study suggested fewer hematomas with burr hole irrigation without drainage compared to with drainage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence on invasive interventions for CSDH is limited. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on patient factors and potential risks/benefits. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to provide clearer guidelines for CSDH treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.25.06356-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a frequent neurological problem, especially in older adults. It often presents headache as a primary symptom. The optimal approach to managing CSDH through invasive treatments is still debated, with various procedures available. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, based on the most recent available literature, to assess the efficacy and safety of invasive interventions for the treatment of CSDH.

Evidence acquisition: A comprehensive search of major databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines with an extensive consultation with experts that independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment. The GRADE approach and RoB 2 tool were used to assess evidence quality and risk of bias.

Evidence synthesis: It was identified 4 studies (N.=579) meeting the inclusion criteria. Invasive interventions included burr hole craniostomy, twist drill craniostomy, and subdural drainage systems. Findings varied across studies. A Chinese study suggested shorter hospital stays with twist drill craniostomy compared to simple burr hole craniostomy. A Denmark study showed that the 48-hour drainage has a significantly higher volume of postoperative drain production compared to the 24-hour group. An Iranian study suggested fewer hematomas with burr hole irrigation without drainage compared to with drainage.

Conclusions: Evidence on invasive interventions for CSDH is limited. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on patient factors and potential risks/benefits. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to provide clearer guidelines for CSDH treatment.

侵入性干预治疗慢性硬膜下血肿的有效性:一项系统综述。
慢性硬膜下血肿(CSDH)是一种常见的神经系统疾病,尤其是在老年人中。通常以头痛为主要症状。通过侵入性治疗来管理CSDH的最佳方法仍然存在争议,有各种可用的程序。我们根据最新文献对随机临床试验进行了系统回顾,以评估侵入性干预治疗CSDH的有效性和安全性。证据获取:根据PRISMA指南对主要数据库进行了全面搜索,并与独立进行研究选择、数据提取和偏倚评估的专家进行了广泛咨询。使用GRADE方法和RoB 2工具评估证据质量和偏倚风险。证据综合:确定4项研究(n =579)符合纳入标准。侵入性干预包括钻孔开颅术、麻花钻开颅术和硬膜下引流系统。研究结果各不相同。中国的一项研究表明,与简单的钻孔开颅术相比,麻花钻开颅术的住院时间更短。丹麦的一项研究表明,与24小时组相比,48小时组的术后排液量明显更高。伊朗的一项研究表明,与引流相比,不引流的钻孔灌溉水较少出现血肿。结论:有创性干预治疗CSDH的证据有限。治疗决定应根据患者因素和潜在风险/益处进行个体化。需要大规模的随机对照试验来为CSDH的治疗提供更清晰的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信