ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025
Comparison of Neurofactor Changes and Prognosis in Elderly Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Treated with Endoscopic versus Conventional Craniotomy Surgery.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy, neurofactor changes, and prognosis in elderly patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) treated with endoscopic surgery versus conventional craniotomy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 88 elderly patients with spontaneous ICH admitted from July 2021 to April 2024. Based on surgical method, patients were assigned to either the conventional craniotomy group (n=44) or the endoscopic surgery group (n=44). Surgical efficacy (hematoma evacuation rate, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss), short-term prognosis (ICU stay, hospital stay, GOS, NIHSS, ADL scores), serum neurofactors (SOD, NSE, NGF, BDNF), inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP, PCT), and complication rates were compared. Results: (1) The endoscopic group had significantly shorter surgical time and lower blood loss than the craniotomy group (P<0.05), with similar hematoma evacuation rates (P>0.05). (2) ICU and hospital stays were significantly shorter in the endoscopic group (P<0.05). Postoperative GOS and ADL scores were higher, and NIHSS scores were lower in the endoscopic group at 3 months (P<0.05). (3) Compared with preoperative levels, both groups showed a decreasing trend in SOD and NSE and an increasing trend in NGF and BDNF after surgery, with the observation group showing more significant and sustained changes over time (P < 0.05). (4) Although postoperative inflammatory markers increased in both groups, the observation group had milder elevations and faster downward trends (P < 0.05). (5) The complication rate was lower in the endoscopic group (6.82% vs 22.73%, P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared to conventional craniotomy, endoscopic hematoma evacuation in elderly ICH patients results in milder inflammatory responses, more favorable neurofactor changes, fewer complications, and improved recovery. However, these findings require further validation due to the retrospective design and limited sample size.
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.