ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Passive or active drainage system for chronic subdural haematoma-a single-center retrospective follow-up study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter: Passive or active drainage system for chronic subdural haematoma-a single center retrospective follow-up study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative drainage systems have become a standard treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). We previously compared treatment results from three Scandinavian centers using three different postoperative drainage systems and concluded that the active subgaleal drainage was associated with lower recurrence and complication rates than the passive subdural drainage. We consequently changed clinical practice from using the passive subdural drainage to the active subgaleal drainage.
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to assess a potential change in reoperation rates for CSDH after conversion to the active subgaleal drainage.
methodsThis single-center cohort study compared the reoperation rates for recurrent same-sided CSDH and postoperative complication rates between patients treated during two study periods (passive subdural drainage cohort versus active subgaleal drainage cohort).
resultsIn total, 594 patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in reoperation rates between the passive subdural drain group and the active subgaleal drain group (21.6%, 95% CI 17.5-26.4% vs. 18.0%, 95% CI 13.8-23.2%; p = 0.275). There was no statistical difference in the rate of serious complications between the groups. The operating time was significantly shorter for patients operated with the active subgaleal drain than patients with the passive subdural drain (32.8 min, 95% CI 31.2-34.5 min vs. 47.6 min, 95% CI 44.7-50.4 min; p < 0.001).
conclusionsConversion from the passive subdural to the active subgaleal drainage did not result in a clear reduction of reoperation rates for CSDH in our center.
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.