ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022
Surgical Treatment of Bilateral Chronic Subdural Hematoma.
Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Retracted: Surgical Treatment of Bilateral Chronic Subdural Hematoma.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2022-12-25Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the common clinical intracranial hemorrhagic disorders, accounting for 16%-20% of bilateral CSDH. At present, the surgical treatment of bilateral CSDH mainly includes drilling drainage and neuroendoscopic assistance. The main objective of this paper was to compare the effects of two surgical methods on CSDH. Methods: 153 patients who were diagnosed with CSDH were included in this study. 79 patients were treated with bilateral drilling drainage, and the other 74 patients were treated with neuroendoscope-assisted drainage. The clinical data of the two groups were compared, and the surgical indexes, neurological function, cure rate, and recurrence rate of the two groups were compared. The operation indexes of patients include operation time, postoperative hematoma volume, hospital stay, extubation time, misplacement of drainage tube, recurrence, and hematoma clearance rate. Results: All patients underwent CT examination one day after operation. The CT imaging detection of the two groups was generally good. The cranial CT was reexamined before discharge. The bilateral hematoma disappeared in 114 patients, the unilateral hematoma disappeared in 29 patients, a small amount of compensatory crescent very low-density shadow subdural effusion was observed on the other side, and a small amount of compensatory crescent very low-density shadow subdural effusion was observed on both sides in 10 patients. There was no space occupying effect and intracranial gas disappeared. Compared with neuroendoscopic assisted drainage, the operation time of drilling drainage patients was significantly shorter. The extubation time, drainage tube dislocation, recurrence rate, postoperative hematoma volume, and hematoma clearance rate of patients receiving neuroendoscopic assisted drainage were significantly better than those receiving drilling drainage. The Markwalder score and hospital stay between the two groups were not significant. Conclusions: Drilling drainage and neuroendoscopic assisted surgery have good therapeutic effects on bilateral CSDH. The operation time of drilling drainage is shorter. Neuroendoscopic assisted surgery has more advantages in extubation time, misplacement of drainage tube, recurrence, postoperative hematoma volume, and hematoma clearance rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.