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

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurosurgical sciences Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.23736/S0390-5616.25.06356-8
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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
A simple yet effective training model for mastering deep bypass procedures. Effectiveness of invasive interventions for chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review. Endoscopic approaches for the treatment of orbital cavernous hemangiomas: a retrospective multicentric case series. A landmark study on spine and spinal cord injuries treated surgically in Italy. Magnetic resonance guided laser interstitial thermal therapy in pediatric brain tumors: an institutional case series.
×
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