ArticleNeurocritical care2025
Feasibility Study of Endoscopic Surgery for Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage with Large Hematoma: a Comparison with Craniotomy Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Endoscopic Surgery Versus Craniotomy for Large Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Identification and Experimental Validation of Key Lipid Metabolism-Related Genes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Based on Machine Learning.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of a dynamic nomogram for predicting the risk of functional outcome after 90 days in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with large hematomas is commonly treated with craniotomy combined with decompressive craniectomy, procedures that involve huge trauma and require subsequent cranioplasty. Recently, endoscopic surgery has shown significant promise in treating ICH, but its feasibility for large hematomas remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to compare endoscopic surgery with craniotomy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery in treating large hematomas ICH.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data from patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH and hematoma volumes exceeding 50 mL who underwent either endoscopic surgery or craniotomy. Propensity score matching analysis was employed to reduce selection bias. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery were evaluated by analyzing blood loss, postoperative edema, mortality rate, complications, and the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at 6-month follow-up.
resultsA total of 113 cases that met the criteria were collected, with 65 in the endoscopic surgery group and 48 in the craniotomy group. After propensity score matching, each group contained 34 cases. The mean hematoma volume was 64.84 ± 11.02 mL in the endoscopy group and 66.57 ± 12.77 mL in the craniotomy group (p = 0.554). Hematoma evacuation rates were 93.27% in the endoscopy group and 89.34% in the craniotomy group (p = 0.141). The endoscopy group exhibited lower blood loss, shorter surgical time, and reduced postoperative edema volume at 24 h compared to the craniotomy group. The rate of pulmonary infection was slightly lower in the endoscopy group compared to the craniotomy group (70.59% vs. 91.18%, p = 0.031), but there were no statistically significant differences in overall complications and mortality rate between the two groups. GOS scores were similar in both groups at the 6-month follow-up.
conclusionsEndoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for treating spontaneous supratentorial ICH with large hematomas, demonstrating efficacy similar to that of craniotomy with decompressive craniectomy.
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.