ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Impact of surgical timing on chronic subdural hematoma outcomes: novel insights from a multicenter study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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.
- The Etiology and Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome in Patients with Primary Lumbar Fixation.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Time to surgery and postoperative functional outcomes among patients with chronic subdural haematomas.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Observational
- Traumatic or Nontraumatic: A Case of Spinal Subdural Hematoma Caused by Multiple Factors.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveChronic Subdural Hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most frequently encountered conditions in the neurosurgical practice. The role of timing in CSDH surgery in mild symptomatic patients remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of surgical timing in patients with mild symptomatic CSDH.
methodsIn this multicenter retrospective study, patients diagnosed with mild symptomatic CSDH who underwent surgical evacuation were enrolled. Marwalder Grading System (MGS) and GCS scores were used for neurological evaluation. Patients presenting with preoperative GCS score ≥ 13 and MGS score ≤ 2 scores were defined as "mild symptomatic". A ROC curve analysis was used to identify the optimal surgical timing associated with favorable postoperative outcome. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to verify the association between surgical timing and postoperative neurological outcome, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complication.
resultsA total of 160 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean latency from hospital admission to surgical intervention was 2.5 ± 3.2 days. All patients treated with surgical evacuation demonstrated postoperative clinical improvement in terms of GCS and/or MGS scores. The univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated significantly better neurological outcomes and shorter length of hospitalization in patients treated within 3 days from hospital admission. No statistically significant associations were demonstrated between surgical timing and postoperative complication.
conclusionsThis is the first study to identify a specific surgical timing cut-off in the treatment of mildly symptomatic CSDH associated with improved clinical outcomes and recovery, offering a potential reference point for clinical decision-making. Patients who underwent surgery within three days from hospital admission exhibited significantly better postoperative neurological outcomes and shorter hospital stays. Surgical timing did not influence postoperative complications, including hematoma recurrence or the need for early reintervention.
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.