SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2026
Minimally invasive versus burr hole craniostomy for chronic subdural haematoma evacuation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an appealing alternative to burr hole craniostomy (BHC) for chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH), offering reduced operative trauma and anaesthetic exposure. However, whether these procedural advantages translate into comparable outcomes remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and procedural performance of MIS versus BHC for cSDH evacuation, with attention to device-specific outcomes.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (10th November 2025) identified randomised and observational studies directly comparing MIS techniques, including twist-drill craniostomy (TDC), subdural evacuating port systems (SEPS), and YL-1 devices, with BHC. Primary outcomes were reoperation, recurrence, and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality, clinical, and functional recovery, operative time (OT), and length of hospital stay (LOS). Random-effects meta-analysis using REML generated pooled risks ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). Quality and risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE.
resultsTwenty-seven studies encompassing 3752 patients (MIS 1763; BHC 1989) met inclusion criteria. MIS was associated with significantly higher reoperation risk (18.3% versus 10.2%; RR 1.57; 95% CI 1.17-2.10; P < 0.001) and higher recurrence in SEPS-specific analyses (RR 1.73; 95% CI 1.29-2.32). Overall complications were lower with MIS (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.94; P < 0.05). Mortality and postoperative functional outcomes were comparable between groups. MIS substantially reduced OT (MD -24.5 min; P < 0.001) and LOS (MD -1.97 days; P < 0.01). Device-level heterogeneity was marked: SEPS demonstrated poorest durability, whereas YL-1 systems showed lowest complication risk. RCT-specific subgroup analyses demonstrated directional consistency with the main effect for all primary outcomes. Risk of bias was moderate to serious for most included studies, with moderate certainty of evidence.
conclusionsMIS offers meaningful perioperative advantages but at the cost of reduced durability, particularly for SEPS-based drainage. BHC remains the more definitive intervention for cSDH, although MIS retains an important role in carefully selected patents, particularly where minimising procedural burden or perioperative morbidity is prioritised. Device-specific performance and haematoma morphology should guide surgical strategy as the field moves toward more mechanistically informed, patient-centred care.
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.