治疗自发性幕上脑室内出血的传统开颅手术与当前的微创手术:倾向匹配分析。

IF 1.4 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING World journal of radiology Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.4329/wjr.v16.i8.317
Zhen-Kun Xiao, Yong-Hong Duan, Xin-Yu Mao, Ri-Chu Liang, Min Zhou, Yong-Mei Yang
{"title":"治疗自发性幕上脑室内出血的传统开颅手术与当前的微创手术:倾向匹配分析。","authors":"Zhen-Kun Xiao, Yong-Hong Duan, Xin-Yu Mao, Ri-Chu Liang, Min Zhou, Yong-Mei Yang","doi":"10.4329/wjr.v16.i8.317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and craniotomy (CI) are the current treatments for spontaneous supratentorial cerebral haemorrhage (SSTICH).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and CI for the treatment of SSTICH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical and imaging data of 557 consecutive patients with SSTICH who underwent MIS or CI between January 2017 and December 2022 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two subgroups: The MIS group and CI group. Propensity score matching was performed to minimise case selection bias. The primary outcome was a dichotomous prognostic (favourable or unfavourable) outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months; an mRS score of 0-2 was considered favourable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both conventional statistical and binary logistic regression analyses, the MIS group had a better outcome. The outcome of propensity score matching was unexpected (odds ratio: 0.582; 95%CI: 0.281-1.204; <i>P</i> = 0.144), which indicated that, after excluding the interference of each confounder, different surgical modalities were more effective, and there was no significant difference in their prognosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Deciding between MIS and CI should be made based on the individual patient, considering the hematoma size, degree of midline shift, cerebral swelling, and preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale score.</p>","PeriodicalId":23819,"journal":{"name":"World journal of radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Traditional craniotomy versus current minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: A propensity-matched analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zhen-Kun Xiao, Yong-Hong Duan, Xin-Yu Mao, Ri-Chu Liang, Min Zhou, Yong-Mei Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.4329/wjr.v16.i8.317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and craniotomy (CI) are the current treatments for spontaneous supratentorial cerebral haemorrhage (SSTICH).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and CI for the treatment of SSTICH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical and imaging data of 557 consecutive patients with SSTICH who underwent MIS or CI between January 2017 and December 2022 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two subgroups: The MIS group and CI group. Propensity score matching was performed to minimise case selection bias. The primary outcome was a dichotomous prognostic (favourable or unfavourable) outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months; an mRS score of 0-2 was considered favourable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both conventional statistical and binary logistic regression analyses, the MIS group had a better outcome. The outcome of propensity score matching was unexpected (odds ratio: 0.582; 95%CI: 0.281-1.204; <i>P</i> = 0.144), which indicated that, after excluding the interference of each confounder, different surgical modalities were more effective, and there was no significant difference in their prognosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Deciding between MIS and CI should be made based on the individual patient, considering the hematoma size, degree of midline shift, cerebral swelling, and preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale score.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372547/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v16.i8.317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v16.i8.317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:比较微创手术(MIS)和开颅手术(CI)治疗SSTICH的有效性和安全性:回顾性分析2017年1月至2022年12月期间接受MIS或CI治疗的557例连续SSTICH患者的临床和影像学数据。患者被分为两个亚组:MIS组和CI组。为尽量减少病例选择偏倚,进行了倾向评分匹配。主要结果是根据3个月时的改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分得出的二分法预后结果(有利或不利);mRS评分为0-2分为有利:在传统统计分析和二元逻辑回归分析中,MIS 组的预后更好。倾向得分匹配的结果出乎意料(几率比:0.582;95%CI:0.281-1.204;P = 0.144),这表明在排除了各种混杂因素的干扰后,不同手术方式的疗效更佳,而其预后并无显著差异:结论:应根据患者的个体情况,考虑血肿大小、中线移位程度、脑肿胀和术前格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分,决定采用 MIS 还是 CI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Traditional craniotomy versus current minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: A propensity-matched analysis.

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and craniotomy (CI) are the current treatments for spontaneous supratentorial cerebral haemorrhage (SSTICH).

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of MIS and CI for the treatment of SSTICH.

Methods: Clinical and imaging data of 557 consecutive patients with SSTICH who underwent MIS or CI between January 2017 and December 2022 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two subgroups: The MIS group and CI group. Propensity score matching was performed to minimise case selection bias. The primary outcome was a dichotomous prognostic (favourable or unfavourable) outcome based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months; an mRS score of 0-2 was considered favourable.

Results: In both conventional statistical and binary logistic regression analyses, the MIS group had a better outcome. The outcome of propensity score matching was unexpected (odds ratio: 0.582; 95%CI: 0.281-1.204; P = 0.144), which indicated that, after excluding the interference of each confounder, different surgical modalities were more effective, and there was no significant difference in their prognosis.

Conclusion: Deciding between MIS and CI should be made based on the individual patient, considering the hematoma size, degree of midline shift, cerebral swelling, and preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale score.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World journal of radiology
World journal of radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
自引率
8.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence software for assessing brain ischemic penumbra/core infarction on computed tomography perfusion: A real-world accuracy study. Direct visualization of postoperative aortobronchial fistula on computed tomography. Multimodal imaging for the diagnosis of oligodendroglioma associated with arteriovenous malformation: A case report. Perianal tuberculous ulcer with active pulmonary, intestinal and orificial tuberculosis: A case report. Plea to radiologists: Please consider Mahvash disease when encountering an enlarged pancreas.
×
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