ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
A single-center experience on endoscopic assisted evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma: is there a role for endoscopic evacuation in the modern era?
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 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.
- Endoscopic-Assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective comparative study.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in recent years and the development of consensus guidelines, there is still room for refinement in treatment indications aimed at lowering recurrence rates and optimizing surgical and clinical outcomes in chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). Herein, we report our single-center outcomes on endoscopic assisted evacuation of cSDH. We retrospectively assessed the patient charts for baseline characteristics and surgical and clinical outcomes of all consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic evacuation of cSDH during the period of January 2016 and January 2017. Endpoints assessed were postoperative hematoma size, difference between preoperative and postoperative hematoma size, postoperative midline shift, difference in incidence of preoperative and postoperative midline shift, mRS (modified Rankin Scale) at discharge, Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) at discharge, 30-day total complications, 30-day major complication, 30- day minor complication, reoperation, hematoma size at last follow up (FU), difference between last-FU hematoma size and preoperative hematoma size, 6-month mRS, incidence of worst mRS at last-FU in comparison to preoperative mRS, and procedure-related mortality. Fourty-four patients with a mean age of 74.5 ± 13.6 years, of which 16 (36%) were females, were included. The mean hospital LOS was 3.9 ± 2.4 days. Surgery achieved an average decrease in hematoma size and midline shift of 12.0 ± 4.4 mm and 5.2 ± 2.8 mm, respectively. The total 30-day complication rate was 36% with a major complication rate of 14%. The most frequent complication was seizure (31% of complications). There was one procedure-related mortality (2%). On discharge, most patients (29/44, 66%) had a good mRS score (0-2). A total of 4 (9%) patients required reoperation. Favorable 6-month GOS (4-5) and mRS (0-2) occurred in 31 (78%) and 35 (84%) patients, respectively. Compared to pre-operative functional status, 6-month mRS was worse only in 4 (10%) patients. In our single-center experience, including most patients with cSDH with membranes and mixed density hematomas, EAE was highly effective and safe. In the modern era, MMAE has proven to be effective as adjunctive to surgical evacuation in cSDH, and we believe that RCTs comparing EAE combined with MMAE to other surgical modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40965609What 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.