在治疗慢性硬膜下血肿时使用硬膜下引流术和脑膜下引流术的比较。

Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.neucir.2024.05.003
Noelia Mirón Jiménez, María Ángeles García Pallero, Cristian Leonardo Ortiz Alonso, Celia González Moldes, Cristina Ferreras García, Belén Álvarez Fernández
{"title":"在治疗慢性硬膜下血肿时使用硬膜下引流术和脑膜下引流术的比较。","authors":"Noelia Mirón Jiménez,&nbsp;María Ángeles García Pallero,&nbsp;Cristian Leonardo Ortiz Alonso,&nbsp;Celia González Moldes,&nbsp;Cristina Ferreras García,&nbsp;Belén Álvarez Fernández","doi":"10.1016/j.neucir.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objetives</h3><p>Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common pathologies in our daily practice. The standard treatment is the evacuation making a burr-hole and placement of a subdural drainage, which has shown to decrease its recurrence. However, this procedure can entail risks such as parenchymal damage, infection, or the onset of seizures, prompting the consideration of subgaleal drainage as an alternative.</p><p>Our objective is to compare the use of subdural and subgaleal drainage in a cohort of patients undergoing intervention for CSDH, as well as to analyze the differences in complication rates and recurrence between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A retrospective analytical observational study was conducted, analyzing 152 patients diagnosed with CSDH who underwent intervention at our center from January 2020 to April 2022. Patients in whom drainage was not placed were excluded. In all patients, a burr-hole was performed and the type of drainage was chosen by the neurosurgeon.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of the 152 patients, subdural drainage was placed in 80 cases (52.63%), while subgaleal drainage was used in 72 cases (47.37%). There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate (30% in the subdural drainage group vs. 20.83% in the subgaleal drainage group; <em>P</em>=.134) or in the complication rate (7.5% in the subdural drainage group vs. 5.5% in the subgaleal drainage group; <em>P</em>=.749).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Subgaleal drainage shows similar clinical outcomes with a recurrence and complication rate comparable to subdural drainage, suggesting it as a safe and effective alternative to subdural drainage in the treatment of CSDH.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"35 5","pages":"Pages 241-246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparación entre el uso de drenaje subdural y subgaleal en tratamiento del hematoma subdural crónico\",\"authors\":\"Noelia Mirón Jiménez,&nbsp;María Ángeles García Pallero,&nbsp;Cristian Leonardo Ortiz Alonso,&nbsp;Celia González Moldes,&nbsp;Cristina Ferreras García,&nbsp;Belén Álvarez Fernández\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neucir.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objetives</h3><p>Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common pathologies in our daily practice. The standard treatment is the evacuation making a burr-hole and placement of a subdural drainage, which has shown to decrease its recurrence. However, this procedure can entail risks such as parenchymal damage, infection, or the onset of seizures, prompting the consideration of subgaleal drainage as an alternative.</p><p>Our objective is to compare the use of subdural and subgaleal drainage in a cohort of patients undergoing intervention for CSDH, as well as to analyze the differences in complication rates and recurrence between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A retrospective analytical observational study was conducted, analyzing 152 patients diagnosed with CSDH who underwent intervention at our center from January 2020 to April 2022. Patients in whom drainage was not placed were excluded. In all patients, a burr-hole was performed and the type of drainage was chosen by the neurosurgeon.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of the 152 patients, subdural drainage was placed in 80 cases (52.63%), while subgaleal drainage was used in 72 cases (47.37%). There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate (30% in the subdural drainage group vs. 20.83% in the subgaleal drainage group; <em>P</em>=.134) or in the complication rate (7.5% in the subdural drainage group vs. 5.5% in the subgaleal drainage group; <em>P</em>=.749).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Subgaleal drainage shows similar clinical outcomes with a recurrence and complication rate comparable to subdural drainage, suggesting it as a safe and effective alternative to subdural drainage in the treatment of CSDH.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\"35 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 241-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1130147324000307\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1130147324000307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目标慢性硬膜下血肿(CSDH)是我们日常工作中最常见的病症之一。标准的治疗方法是钻孔排空血肿并放置硬膜下引流管,这种方法已被证明可以减少血肿的复发。我们的目的是比较在接受 CSDH 干预治疗的一组患者中使用硬膜下引流术和硬膜下引流术的情况,并分析两组患者在并发症发生率和复发率方面的差异。方法 对2020年1月至2022年4月期间在本中心接受介入治疗的152例确诊为CSDH的患者进行回顾性分析观察研究。未放置引流管的患者被排除在外。结果 在 152 例患者中,80 例(52.63%)进行了硬膜下引流,72 例(47.37%)进行了脑膜下引流。在复发率(硬膜下引流组为 30% vs. 鼓膜下引流组为 20.83%;P=.134)和并发症发生率(硬膜下引流组为 7.5% vs. 鼓膜下引流组为 5.5%;P=.749)方面无明显差异。结论硬膜下引流术显示出相似的临床效果,复发率和并发症发生率与硬膜下引流术相当,表明它是治疗 CSDH 的硬膜下引流术的安全有效的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Comparación entre el uso de drenaje subdural y subgaleal en tratamiento del hematoma subdural crónico

Background and objetives

Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common pathologies in our daily practice. The standard treatment is the evacuation making a burr-hole and placement of a subdural drainage, which has shown to decrease its recurrence. However, this procedure can entail risks such as parenchymal damage, infection, or the onset of seizures, prompting the consideration of subgaleal drainage as an alternative.

Our objective is to compare the use of subdural and subgaleal drainage in a cohort of patients undergoing intervention for CSDH, as well as to analyze the differences in complication rates and recurrence between the two groups.

Methodology

A retrospective analytical observational study was conducted, analyzing 152 patients diagnosed with CSDH who underwent intervention at our center from January 2020 to April 2022. Patients in whom drainage was not placed were excluded. In all patients, a burr-hole was performed and the type of drainage was chosen by the neurosurgeon.

Results

Out of the 152 patients, subdural drainage was placed in 80 cases (52.63%), while subgaleal drainage was used in 72 cases (47.37%). There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate (30% in the subdural drainage group vs. 20.83% in the subgaleal drainage group; P=.134) or in the complication rate (7.5% in the subdural drainage group vs. 5.5% in the subgaleal drainage group; P=.749).

Conclusions

Subgaleal drainage shows similar clinical outcomes with a recurrence and complication rate comparable to subdural drainage, suggesting it as a safe and effective alternative to subdural drainage in the treatment of CSDH.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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