ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2026
Minimally Invasive Evacuation for Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Contemporary Randomized Trials: Patient Selection, Timing, and Platform Choice.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for only 10-15% of all strokes but contributes disproportionately to stroke-related death and long-term disability. For decades, surgical evacuation of supratentorial ICH failed to show consistent functional benefit in randomized trials. The Early Minimally Invasive Removal of Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ENRICH) trial altered this trajectory by providing the first positive randomized evidence that an early, protocolized minimally invasive parafascicular approach can improve utility-weighted 180-day outcome in a predominantly lobar population. Interpretation was complicated by the 2025 MIND trial, which tested Artemis-based minimally invasive evacuation in a cohort dominated by deep hemorrhage and, after early termination, did not show benefit on its primary endpoint. In parallel, the SWITCH trial suggested at most a limited role for decompressive craniectomy without clot evacuation in severe deep ICH, with any possible reduction in death or extreme disability tempered by substantial residual disability among survivors. These trials indicate that the current issue is no longer the general rationale for surgery, but the specific patients, treatment window, and technical conditions under which evacuation is most likely to confer net benefit. This review traces the evidence from the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH) program and the Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Alteplase for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation (MISTIE) program to ENRICH and MIND, compares the major minimally invasive strategies, and examines hemorrhage location, hematoma volume, and treatment timing as the principal determinants of patient selection. On the basis of current randomized evidence, the clearest evidence-supported indication is early (<24 h) minimally invasive evacuation for patients resembling the ENRICH population: lobar supratentorial ICH, hematoma volume 30-80 mL, and treatment performed by a trained team using a standardized parafascicular workflow. Conversely, routine minimally invasive evacuation for most deep supratentorial hemorrhages, ultra-early (<8 h) intervention outside clinical trials, intervention beyond the ENRICH-supported early window, and the use of alternative platforms without comparable randomized support should be regarded as investigational or extrapolative rather than established standard 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.