SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral drainage in bilateral chronic subdural hematoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background bilateral chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is frequently encountered in neurosurgical practice, particularly in older adults. While burr-hole drainage remains the standard treatment, the optimal surgical strategy for bilateral disease is still debated. In daily practice, surgeons often choose between unilateral drainage and bilateral drainage in the same operative setting. Clear evidence to support one approach over the other remains limited. Aim to compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral drainage in patients with bilateral CSDH through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to January 2026. Eligible studies included adult patients with bilateral CSDH undergoing unilateral or bilateral drainage. Primary outcome was recurrence. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, mortality, postoperative complications, infection, and the proportion of patients requiring additional contralateral treatment after unilateral drainage. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2 for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Comparative meta-analyses were performed using RevMan with a fixed-effect model, while single-arm pooling for contralateral retreatment was conducted using OpenMeta. Results eleven studies involving 1390 patients were included (623 unilateral; 767 bilateral), including one RCT and ten cohort studies. Unilateral drainage was associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate compared with bilateral drainage (8 studies, 1172 patients; OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.98, p = 0.02), with mild heterogeneity that resolved after sensitivity analysis (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.13-2.16, p = 0.007; I² = 0%). Reoperation was also more frequent after unilateral drainage (7 studies, 953 patients; OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.21-2.48, p = 0.003; I² = 0%). There were no significant differences between groups in mortality, overall complications, or infection. Among unilateral cases, 14.3% required subsequent contralateral treatment (9 studies; 95% CI 9.2%-19.3%), with moderate heterogeneity. Conclusion in bilateral CSDH, bilateral drainage is associated with lower recurrence and reoperation rates compared with unilateral drainage, while safety outcomes appear comparable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536233What 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.