Comparison between the use of subdural and subgaleal drainage in treatment of chronic subdural hematoma

{"title":"Comparison between the use of subdural and subgaleal drainage in treatment of chronic subdural hematoma","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2024.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p><span>Chronic subdural hematoma<span> (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 </span></span>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":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849624000376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
背景和目的: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。然而,这种方法可能会带来实质损伤、感染或癫痫发作等风险,因此需要考虑采用硬膜下引流术作为替代方法。我们的目的是比较一组因 CSDH 而接受介入治疗的患者使用硬膜下引流术和气门下引流术的情况,并分析两组患者在并发症发生率和复发率方面的差异:我们开展了一项回顾性分析观察研究,分析了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。未放置引流管的患者除外。所有患者都进行了钻孔手术,引流方式由神经外科医生选择: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。复发率(硬膜下引流组为 30%,而格尔膜下引流组为 20.83%;P = 0.134)和并发症发生率(硬膜下引流组为 7.5%,而格尔膜下引流组为 5.5%;P = 0.749)无明显差异:结论:脑膜下引流术的临床效果与硬膜下引流术相似,复发率和并发症发生率与硬膜下引流术相当,这表明在治疗 CSDH 时,脑膜下引流术是一种安全有效的硬膜下引流术替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Relationship between optic nerve length and interoptic angle in the prediction of optic chiasm location. Epidemiological aspects of syringomyelia in a 19-year old cohort of spinal cord injury patients. Mortality risk factors for adult trauma patients treated with halo brace for cervical spine fracture. Endovascular treatment of chronic subdural hematoma in a dual-trained neurosurgical unit: Results and proposal of a randomized controlled trial protocol. Cervical spine spondylodiscitis due to neglected esophageal perforation after a dilation procedure 30 years after a laringectomy and radiotherapy. Report of a case and review of literature.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1