ArticleCureus2024
Endoscopic Evacuation Versus Open Craniotomy and Evacuation of Non-traumatic Intracerebral Bleed: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Neuroendoscopy versus Craniotomy for Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Neurosurgical management of intracerebral hemorrhage in anticoagulated patients: Outcomes and reversal strategies.Brain circulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), the usage of microsurgical instrumentation and techniques can reduce traction-related injuries and enhance postoperative outcomes compared with traditional hematoma evacuation. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of endoscopic evacuation of spontaneous non-traumatic ICH with conventional open craniotomies and evacuations of ICH in terms of safety, feasibility, and neurological outcomes. Methods This was a prospective study that included 21 patients with spontaneous intracerebral hematomas managed by surgical evacuation endoscopically and another 24 patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH who underwent hematoma evacuation by open craniotomy. Primary outcomes included operation duration, operative blood loss, hematoma evacuation rate, re-bleeding rate, and postoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. Results The median operation durations were 110 (90-200) and 230 (120-460) minutes in the endoscopic and open procedure groups, respectively (p = 0.00001). The median operative blood loss was 160 (80-300) and 530 (100-2000) mL in the endoscopic and open procedure groups, respectively (p < 0.00001). The median hematoma removal rates were 90% (60%-99%) and 85% (60%-100%) in the endoscopic and open procedure groups, respectively (p = 0.0348). Re-bleeding rates were higher in the endoscopic group (p = 0.46). Postoperative Glasgow Outcome Scale scores at two-month and six-month intervals were similar between the groups (p = 0.87). Conclusion Endoscopic hematoma evacuation for spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage is becoming a standard surgical procedure, and promising clinical results can be expected. In addition, an endoscope can enhance time efficiency, hematoma evacuation rates, and reduce bleeding. Although endoscopic surgeries have higher re-bleeding rates, the difference is not significant when compared to open craniotomies with similar postoperative GCS scores. It is therefore important to be familiar with the endoscope and its associated equipment in order to achieve better results and reduce complications.
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.