ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparative analysis of the efficacy of neuro-endoscopy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
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, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does adding decompressive craniectomy to hematoma evacuation improve the outcome for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hematoma? A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Medical Management for Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity Score-Matched Studies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Retrospective clinical study of endoscopic transfrontal approach vs. transSylvian-transinsular craniotomy for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia: efficacy comparison and value of anatomical cognition of Sylvian fissure.Frontiers in surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are multiple therapeutic approaches for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, including neuro-endoscopy and traditional craniotomy. This study aims to compare the efficacy and prognosis of these two modalities in managing hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
methodBy retrospectively analyzing data from two medical centers, we comprehensively investigated patients who underwent surgical intervention for spontaneous cerebral hemorrhage within 48 h of admission between June 2021 and May 2024. A total of 285 patients diagnosed with HICH were included in this study, divided into two groups (endoscopic surgery group and traditional surgery group). Comparative analyses were conducted to assess differences in baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, prognosis, and neurological function between the two groups.
resultsAmong the 285 eligible patients, we conducted endoscopic surgery and traditional open craniotomy. The baseline table indicates no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding bleeding volume and admission GCS score (p > 0.05). Compared to the traditional surgery group, the neuro-endoscopic surgery group demonstrates advantages in operation time (105.25 ± 10.6 vs. 154.33 ± 22.64, p < 0.01), surgical bleeding volume (89.65 ± 34.96 vs. 175.35 ± 67.6, p < 0.01), hospital stay time (16.73 ± 2.38 vs. 20.4 ± 4.6, p < 0.01), hematoma clearance rate (92.7 ± 3.15 vs. 87.6 ± 6.4, p < 0.01), and hospital expenses (9 ± 2.02 vs. 13.8 ± 2.6, p = 0.001). The neuro-endoscopy group can bring better long-term benefits compared to the traditional surgical group. (p<0.05).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that neuroendoscopy may improve long-term prognosis compared to conventional surgical approaches. The utilization of neuro-endoscopy in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage significantly enhances the rate of hematoma clearance, reduces intraoperative bleeding and surgical time, shortens hospital stay, and lowers hospitalization expenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40650832What 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.