ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2023
Chronic subdural hematoma drainage using anti-thrombotic catheter technique.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Burr hole evacuation is a well-established treatment for symptomatic cases with chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). Routinely postoperative catheter is left in the subdural space to drain the residual blood. Drainage obstruction is commonly seen, and it can be related to suboptimal treatment. Methods: Two groups of patients submitted to cSDH surgery were evaluated in a retrospective non-randomized trial, one group that had conventional subdural drainage (CD group, n = 20) and another group that used an anti-thrombotic catheter (AT group, n = 14). We compared the obstruction rate, amount of drainage and complications. Statistical analyses were done using SPSS (v.28.0). Results: For AT and CD groups respectively (median ± IQR), the age was 68.23 ± 26.0 and 70.94 ± 21.5 (p > 0.05); preoperative hematoma width was 18.3 ± 11.0 mm and 20.7 ± 11.7 mm and midline shift was 13.0 ± 9.2 and 5.2 ± 8.0 mm (p = 0.49). Postoperative hematoma width was 12.7 ± 9.2 mm and 10.8 ± 9.0 mm (p < 0.001 intra-groups compared to preoperative) and MLS was 5.2 ± 8.0 mm and 1.5 ± 4.3 mm (p < 0.05 intra-groups). There were no complications related to the procedure including infection, bleed worsening and edema. No proximal obstruction was observed on the AT, but 8/20 (40%) presented proximal obstruction on the CD group (p = 0.006). Daily drainage rates and length of drainage were higher in AT compared to CD: 4.0 ± 1.25 days vs. 3.0 ± 1.0 days (p < 0.001) and 69.86 ± 106.54 vs. 35.00 ± 59.67 mL/day (p = 0.074). Symptomatic recurrence demanding surgery occurred in two patients of CD group (10%) and none in AT group (p = 0.230), after adjusting for MMA embolization, there was still no difference between groups (p = 0.121). Conclusion: The anti-thrombotic catheter for cSDH drainage presented significant less proximal obstruction than the conventional one and higher daily drainage rates. Both methods demonstrated to safe and effective for draining cSDH.
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.