Comparison of Mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) between Craniotomy and Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients with Traumatic Acute Subdural Hematoma at Sanglah General Hospital, Bali

Ni Luh Putu Julita Yanti, I. Niryana, S. Maliawan, I. N. Semadi, T. Mahadewa, I. G. A. B. K. Wibawa
{"title":"Comparison of Mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) between Craniotomy and Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients with Traumatic Acute Subdural Hematoma at Sanglah General Hospital, Bali","authors":"Ni Luh Putu Julita Yanti, I. Niryana, S. Maliawan, I. N. Semadi, T. Mahadewa, I. G. A. B. K. Wibawa","doi":"10.24843/jbn.2022.v06.i01.p03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy and are surgical modalities for the evacuation of acute subdural hematoma (SDH). These two techniques show different outcomes in various existing studies. The superiority between either techniques remains controversial. Objective: To determine the outcome comparison of mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) craniotomy with decompressive craniectomy in patients with traumatic acute SDH. Methods: This is a historical cohort study. Samples of the study were collected from January 2018 to March 2020 at Sanglah General Hospital. All patients with acute traumatic SDH who underwent SDH evacuation with craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy were assessed for mortality status at discharge and GOSE 3 months after surgery. Independent T-test will be carried out if the numerical variable were all normally distributed, while Mann-Whitney U test will be performed if otherwise. A Chi-square test will be performed on all unpaired categorical variables. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 25 with 95% confidence intervals. Results: As many as 40 subjects with traumatic acute SDH who underwent craniotomy and 40 subjects with traumatic acute SDH who underwent decompressive craniectomy were included in this study. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR: 1; 95% CI 0.67-1.87; p=0.651) and GOSE score (p=0.718) in traumatic acute SDH who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy. Conclusion: There was no difference in mortality and GOSE outcomes between a craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy for management of traumatic acute SDH.","PeriodicalId":52988,"journal":{"name":"JBN Jurnal Bedah Nasional","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBN Jurnal Bedah Nasional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24843/jbn.2022.v06.i01.p03","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: Craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy and are surgical modalities for the evacuation of acute subdural hematoma (SDH). These two techniques show different outcomes in various existing studies. The superiority between either techniques remains controversial. Objective: To determine the outcome comparison of mortality and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) craniotomy with decompressive craniectomy in patients with traumatic acute SDH. Methods: This is a historical cohort study. Samples of the study were collected from January 2018 to March 2020 at Sanglah General Hospital. All patients with acute traumatic SDH who underwent SDH evacuation with craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy were assessed for mortality status at discharge and GOSE 3 months after surgery. Independent T-test will be carried out if the numerical variable were all normally distributed, while Mann-Whitney U test will be performed if otherwise. A Chi-square test will be performed on all unpaired categorical variables. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 25 with 95% confidence intervals. Results: As many as 40 subjects with traumatic acute SDH who underwent craniotomy and 40 subjects with traumatic acute SDH who underwent decompressive craniectomy were included in this study. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR: 1; 95% CI 0.67-1.87; p=0.651) and GOSE score (p=0.718) in traumatic acute SDH who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy. Conclusion: There was no difference in mortality and GOSE outcomes between a craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy for management of traumatic acute SDH.
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
巴厘岛桑拉综合医院外伤性急性硬膜下血肿开颅术和减压开颅术患者死亡率和格拉斯哥预后量表扩展量表(GOSE)的比较
背景:开颅术和减压术是治疗急性硬膜下血肿(SDH)的手术方式。这两种技术在各种现有研究中显示出不同的结果。这两种技术之间的优势仍然存在争议。目的:比较外伤性急性SDH患者的死亡率和格拉斯哥预后评分扩展(GOSE)开颅与减压开颅的结果。方法:这是一项历史队列研究。该研究的样本于2018年1月至2020年3月在Sanglah总医院收集。所有急性外伤性SDH患者均行SDH清除术并开颅减压,术后3个月评估出院时的死亡率和GOSE。若数值变量均为正态分布,则采用独立t检验,否则采用Mann-Whitney U检验。对所有未配对的分类变量进行卡方检验。统计学分析采用SPSS 25,置信区间为95%。结果:本研究共纳入40例外伤性急性SDH患者行开颅手术和40例外伤性急性SDH患者行减压开颅手术。两组死亡率无显著差异(RR: 1;95% ci 0.67-1.87;p=0.651)和GOSE评分(p=0.718)。结论:外伤性急性SDH的死亡率和GOSE结果在开颅手术和减压开颅手术之间没有差异。
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
12
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Hubungan Jumlah Limfosit, Monosit, dan Neutrofil Darah Tepi dengan Pemberian Vitamin D pada Terapi Neoadjuvan Kanker Payudara Stadium Lanjut Lokal Gambaran Klinis Hasil Pemeriksaan Esofagogastroduodenoskopi pada Pasien Dispepsia di RSUD Prof. Dr. W. Z. Johannes Kupang Tahun 2020-2021 Surgical Drainage Cystogastrostomy in Patient with Pancreatic Pseudocyst Gambaran Radiologis Pre-Operasi Sebagai Penentu Prognosis Pasien Glioma: Studi Pada Rumah Sakit Rujukan Pusat di Jawa Barat Efektivitas Triamcinolone Acetonide dan Virgin Coconut Oil untuk Mencegah Terjadinya Adhesi Intraperitoneal Pasca Laparotomi Pada Tikus
×
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