Neurosurgical treatment of cerebellar infarct: Open craniectomy versus endoscopic surgery.

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-11-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_740_2024

Keyvan Mostofi, Kamran Shirbache, Ali Shirbacheh, Morad Peyravi

{"title":"Neurosurgical treatment of cerebellar infarct: Open craniectomy versus endoscopic surgery.","authors":"Keyvan Mostofi, Kamran Shirbache, Ali Shirbacheh, Morad Peyravi","doi":"10.25259/SNI_740_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cerebellar infarction can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. Current surgical options include decompressive craniectomy (DC) and endoscopic minimally invasive evacuation of necrotic tissue (MEN), but no randomized studies compare their outcomes.This study compares outcomes between DC and MEN in patients with cerebellar infarct using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) scores.Methods: Retrospective review of 37 patients treated for cerebellar infarct between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into DC and MEN groups, with outcome measures assessed postoperatively.Results: Both techniques produced similar improvements in GCS and SARA scores, though MEN showed faster healing time and shorter surgery duration.Conclusion: MEN may offer advantages over traditional surgery in terms of healing and shorter operative time, warranting further investigation.","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"15 ","pages":"442"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618802/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_740_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cerebellar infarction can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. Current surgical options include decompressive craniectomy (DC) and endoscopic minimally invasive evacuation of necrotic tissue (MEN), but no randomized studies compare their outcomes.This study compares outcomes between DC and MEN in patients with cerebellar infarct using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) scores.

Methods: Retrospective review of 37 patients treated for cerebellar infarct between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into DC and MEN groups, with outcome measures assessed postoperatively.

Results: Both techniques produced similar improvements in GCS and SARA scores, though MEN showed faster healing time and shorter surgery duration.

Conclusion: MEN may offer advantages over traditional surgery in terms of healing and shorter operative time, warranting further investigation.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

小脑梗死的神经外科治疗：开颅手术与内窥镜手术。

背景：小脑梗死可导致严重的发病率和死亡率。目前的手术选择包括减压颅骨切除术（DC）和内窥镜微创坏死组织清除术（MEN），但没有随机研究比较它们的结果。本研究使用格拉斯哥昏迷量表（GCS）和共济失调评定量表（SARA）评分比较DC和MEN在小脑梗死患者中的结果。方法：回顾性分析2010 ~ 2020年收治的37例小脑梗死患者。将患者分为DC组和MEN组，并对术后结果进行评估。结果：两种技术对GCS和SARA评分的改善相似，但MEN的愈合时间更快，手术时间更短。结论：MEN在愈合和缩短手术时间方面可能比传统手术有优势，值得进一步研究。

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

Surgical neurology international

自引率

0.00%

发文量