Minimally invasive surgery for non-traumatic spontaneous intracerebral Hemorrhage: A network Meta-Analysis of multiple treatment modalities

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111196
Rabeet Tariq , Salaar Ahmed , Mohammad Aadil Qamar , Mohammad Hamza Bajwa , Abdu R Rahman , Saad Akhtar Khan , Roua Nasir , Jai Kumar Das
{"title":"Minimally invasive surgery for non-traumatic spontaneous intracerebral Hemorrhage: A network Meta-Analysis of multiple treatment modalities","authors":"Rabeet Tariq ,&nbsp;Salaar Ahmed ,&nbsp;Mohammad Aadil Qamar ,&nbsp;Mohammad Hamza Bajwa ,&nbsp;Abdu R Rahman ,&nbsp;Saad Akhtar Khan ,&nbsp;Roua Nasir ,&nbsp;Jai Kumar Das","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage (SICH) is a severe condition with high mortality and morbidity, annually affecting around 2 million people globally. Current treatment guidelines emphasize medical management however, Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS), including stereotactic and endoscopic approaches, has shown promise in improving outcomes. This network <em>meta</em>-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of MIS with conventional craniotomy, burrhole catheter insertion, and medical treatment for the management of SICH.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search across three databases to identify relevant studies. Data extracted included demographics, treatment outcomes, and adverse effects, while the quality of studies was assessed using the NHLBI tool. A network <em>meta</em>-analysis was performed using RStudio to compare the effectiveness of MIS approaches with other treatment modalities.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>MIS for SICH was more effective than conservative medical management in reducing mortality (OR: 1.991; 95% CI, 1.364–2.907) but did not show a mortality benefit compared to conventional surgery, external ventricular drainage (EVD), or burr hole procedures. MIS had similar hematoma evacuation rates to conventional surgery and burr hole drainage but required significantly less operating time (SMD: 3.837; 95% CI, 2.851–4.823) and reduced ICU stay (SMD: 4.436; 95% CI, 2.386–6.486). Conventional surgery had higher risks of blood loss, seizures, GI bleed/ulceration, and pneumonia/RTI, while MIS showed a safer profile regarding these complications. There was no significant difference in rebleeding (OR: 1.492; 95% CI, 0.632–3.522) or reoperation rates (OR: 0.494; 95% CI, 0.120–2.039) between MIS, conventional surgery, and conservative treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>MIS significantly reduces mortality compared to conservative treatment while offering similar outcomes to other surgeries. MIS also has advantages like shorter operating times, reduced ICU stays, and fewer complications, making it a promising alternative for managing SICH.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"135 ","pages":"Article 111196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825001687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage (SICH) is a severe condition with high mortality and morbidity, annually affecting around 2 million people globally. Current treatment guidelines emphasize medical management however, Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS), including stereotactic and endoscopic approaches, has shown promise in improving outcomes. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of MIS with conventional craniotomy, burrhole catheter insertion, and medical treatment for the management of SICH.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search across three databases to identify relevant studies. Data extracted included demographics, treatment outcomes, and adverse effects, while the quality of studies was assessed using the NHLBI tool. A network meta-analysis was performed using RStudio to compare the effectiveness of MIS approaches with other treatment modalities.

Results

MIS for SICH was more effective than conservative medical management in reducing mortality (OR: 1.991; 95% CI, 1.364–2.907) but did not show a mortality benefit compared to conventional surgery, external ventricular drainage (EVD), or burr hole procedures. MIS had similar hematoma evacuation rates to conventional surgery and burr hole drainage but required significantly less operating time (SMD: 3.837; 95% CI, 2.851–4.823) and reduced ICU stay (SMD: 4.436; 95% CI, 2.386–6.486). Conventional surgery had higher risks of blood loss, seizures, GI bleed/ulceration, and pneumonia/RTI, while MIS showed a safer profile regarding these complications. There was no significant difference in rebleeding (OR: 1.492; 95% CI, 0.632–3.522) or reoperation rates (OR: 0.494; 95% CI, 0.120–2.039) between MIS, conventional surgery, and conservative treatment.

Conclusion

MIS significantly reduces mortality compared to conservative treatment while offering similar outcomes to other surgeries. MIS also has advantages like shorter operating times, reduced ICU stays, and fewer complications, making it a promising alternative for managing SICH.
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
微创手术治疗非创伤性自发性脑出血:多种治疗方式的网络Meta分析
自发性幕上脑出血(siich)是一种死亡率和发病率高的严重疾病,每年影响全球约200万人。目前的治疗指南强调医疗管理,然而,微创手术(MIS),包括立体定向和内窥镜入路,已经显示出改善结果的希望。本网络荟萃分析旨在比较MIS与传统开颅术、钻孔置管和药物治疗治疗SICH的疗效和安全性。方法遵循PRISMA指南,对三个数据库进行综合文献检索,确定相关研究。提取的数据包括人口统计学、治疗结果和不良反应,同时使用NHLBI工具评估研究的质量。使用RStudio进行网络荟萃分析,比较MIS方法与其他治疗方式的有效性。结果SICH的smis治疗比保守治疗更能有效降低死亡率(OR: 1.991;95% CI, 1.364-2.907),但与传统手术、外心室引流(EVD)或钻孔手术相比,没有显示出死亡率的降低。MIS的血肿清除率与常规手术和钻孔引流相似,但所需的手术时间明显少于常规手术(SMD: 3.837;95% CI, 2.851-4.823)和减少ICU住院时间(SMD: 4.436;95% ci, 2.386-6.486)。传统手术有较高的失血、癫痫发作、胃肠道出血/溃疡和肺炎/呼吸道感染的风险,而MIS在这些并发症方面表现出更安全的特征。两组再出血无显著差异(OR: 1.492;95% CI, 0.632-3.522)或再手术率(or: 0.494;MIS、常规手术和保守治疗之间的95% CI, 0.120-2.039)。结论与保守治疗相比,mis可显著降低病死率,且疗效与其他手术相似。MIS还具有手术时间短、ICU住院时间短、并发症少等优点,是治疗siich的理想选择。
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
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
402
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.
期刊最新文献
SESA syndrome: synthesizing evidence and proposing diagnostic criteria and severity grading—a scoping review Facial-onset SOD1 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A case report and systematic review Mixed reality neurosurgical simulations and adult learning theories: a systematic review CSF-venous fistulas Reconsidered: Pressure paradox and the Volume-Elastance Relationship. Isolated trigeminal neuropathy resulting from a pontine metastasis invading the trigeminal root entry zone
×
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:604180095
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