ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Full Visualization of Contact Endoscopy for Basal Ganglia Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Study Comparing With Microscopy and Neuroendoscopy.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBasal ganglia hemorrhage (BGH) is a severe subtype of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Surgical intervention remains a critical strategy for reducing hematoma volume, alleviating mass effect, and improving clinical outcomes. This study compared fully visualized contact endoscopy with microscopy and standard neuroendoscopy for BGH treatment.
methodsA retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted on patients undergoing surgical evacuation for BGH (n=335) at 8 tertiary medical centers in Suzhou from January 2021 to May 2024, stratified into microscopy (n=217), neuroendoscopy (n=76), and contact endoscopy (n=42) groups. Surgical outcomes and prognostic indicators were systematically evaluated across groups, with multivariable analysis conducted to independently assess the impact of surgical methods on long-term prognosis.
resultsBoth endoscopic groups showed significantly shorter operation times, reduced blood loss, and shorter intensive care unit stays than the microscopy group (
conclusionsMicroscopy, neuroendoscopy, and contact endoscopy all demonstrated effectiveness for hematoma evacuation and life preservation for BGH. Endoscopic approaches may offer superior perioperative safety profiles without significant long-term outcome differences. Contact endoscopy is a safe and feasible alternative for BGH surgery.
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.