Which is better in the management of chronic subdural hematoma: Irrigation, or no irrigation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-11-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_652_2024
Abdulsalam Mohammed Aleid, Saud Nayef Aldanyowi, Ayat J Aleid, Awn Abdulmohsen Alessa, Abdulmonem Ali Alhussain, Loai Saleh Albinsaad, Abbas Saleh Al Mutair
{"title":"Which is better in the management of chronic subdural hematoma: Irrigation, or no irrigation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Abdulsalam Mohammed Aleid, Saud Nayef Aldanyowi, Ayat J Aleid, Awn Abdulmohsen Alessa, Abdulmonem Ali Alhussain, Loai Saleh Albinsaad, Abbas Saleh Al Mutair","doi":"10.25259/SNI_652_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a prevalent neurological disorder, especially among the elderly, where blood accumulates between the brain and its outer covering. The primary treatment for CSDH involves surgical intervention, such as burr-hole craniotomy, with or without irrigation of the subdural space. The efficacy of irrigation versus no irrigation in reducing recurrence, mortality, and postoperative complications remains debated. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of irrigation versus no irrigation in the surgical management of CSDH through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, targeting RCTs published in English comparing irrigation with no irrigation in CSDH management. Four RCTs with a total of 843 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted data independently, and the risk of bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment. The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included four RCTs with 843 patients, revealing that irrigation significantly reduces the recurrence of CSDH compared to no irrigation (odds ratios [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.98, <i>P</i> = 0.04), with no observed heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Mortality rates showed no significant difference between the irrigation and no irrigation groups (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.59-2.06, <i>P</i> = 0.77), also with no heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Postoperative complications initially showed no significant difference (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69, <i>P</i> = 0.21) and moderate heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 52%). However, sensitivity analysis resolving the heterogeneity indicated a significant reduction in complications favoring the irrigation group (<i>P</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that irrigation during burr-hole drainage significantly reduces CSDH recurrence without increasing mortality or postoperative complications, supporting its use in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings and assess long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"15 ","pages":"435"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11618649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_652_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: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a prevalent neurological disorder, especially among the elderly, where blood accumulates between the brain and its outer covering. The primary treatment for CSDH involves surgical intervention, such as burr-hole craniotomy, with or without irrigation of the subdural space. The efficacy of irrigation versus no irrigation in reducing recurrence, mortality, and postoperative complications remains debated. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of irrigation versus no irrigation in the surgical management of CSDH through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, targeting RCTs published in English comparing irrigation with no irrigation in CSDH management. Four RCTs with a total of 843 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted data independently, and the risk of bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment. The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

Results: The meta-analysis included four RCTs with 843 patients, revealing that irrigation significantly reduces the recurrence of CSDH compared to no irrigation (odds ratios [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.98, P = 0.04), with no observed heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Mortality rates showed no significant difference between the irrigation and no irrigation groups (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.59-2.06, P = 0.77), also with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Postoperative complications initially showed no significant difference (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69, P = 0.21) and moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 52%). However, sensitivity analysis resolving the heterogeneity indicated a significant reduction in complications favoring the irrigation group (P = 0.03).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that irrigation during burr-hole drainage significantly reduces CSDH recurrence without increasing mortality or postoperative complications, supporting its use in clinical practice. Further, high-quality RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings and assess long-term outcomes.

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
治疗慢性硬膜下血肿,冲洗和不冲洗哪个更好?随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:慢性硬膜下血肿(CSDH)是一种常见的神经系统疾病,特别是在老年人中,血液积聚在大脑及其外层覆盖物之间。CSDH的主要治疗包括手术干预,如钻孔开颅,伴或不伴硬膜下间隙冲洗。冲洗与不冲洗在减少复发、死亡率和术后并发症方面的效果仍存在争议。该研究旨在通过随机对照试验(rct)的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较冲洗与不冲洗在CSDH手术治疗中的有效性和安全性。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价和荟萃分析。检索的数据库包括PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library,目标是比较灌溉和不灌溉在CSDH管理中的rct。4项rct共843例患者符合纳入标准。两名审稿人独立提取数据,使用风险偏倚2工具进行质量评估。主要结局为复发;次要结局包括死亡率和术后并发症。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行统计分析。结果:meta分析纳入4项rct,共843例患者,结果显示,与不冲洗相比,冲洗可显著降低CSDH的复发(优势比[OR] = 0.66, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.44-0.98, P = 0.04),且未观察到异质性(I2 = 0%)。灌水组和非灌水组的死亡率无显著差异(OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.59-2.06, P = 0.77),也无异质性(I2 = 0%)。术后并发症初始差异无统计学意义(OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69, P = 0.21),异质性中等(I2 = 52%)。然而,解决异质性的敏感性分析显示,冲洗组并发症显著减少(P = 0.03)。结论:本荟萃分析表明,钻孔引流术中冲洗可显著降低CSDH复发,且不增加死亡率和术后并发症,支持其在临床实践中的应用。此外,需要高质量的随机对照试验来证实这些发现并评估长期结果。
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
Intradural extramedullary tuberculoma in a case of disseminated tuberculosis: A case report. Neurosurgery for mental conditions and pain: An historical perspective on the limits of biological determinism. Neurosurgical strategy based on the type of occult spinal dysraphism in omphalocele-exstrophy-imperforate anus-spinal defects complex: A review of 10 cases. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: A simple and accurate biomarker for the prognosis of patients with intracerebral bleeding, a study of 115 cases. Semi-sitting position and retrosigmoid approach for a large petroclival meningioma resection: 3-dimensional operative video.
×
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