Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery versus small bone window craniotomy for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

内镜手术与小骨窗开颅术治疗自发性幕上脑出血的长期疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析和试验序贯分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic surgery (ES) and small bone window craniotomy (SBWC) are commonly used methods for hematoma removal in cases of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, their long-term efficacy and safety remain uncertain. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 30, 2024. The primary outcomes assessed were the 6-month favorable functional outcome rate and the hematoma evacuation rate. Following the meta-analysis, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to validate the findings. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. ES demonstrated a higher 6-month favorable functional outcome rate compared to SBWC (56.8% vs. 48.0%, relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.38, I(2) = 28%), with TSA supporting this result. The hematoma evacuation rate was also higher in the ES group (mean difference [MD] 6.41, 95% CI 1.83-10.99, I² = 95%); however, the TSA did not support this result due to the potential false-positive. Additionally, ES was associated with shorter operation times, less blood loss during surgery, and a lower pneumonia rate compared to SBWC (MD -112.35, 95% CI -165.27 to -59.43; MD -151.22, 95% CI -279.60 to -22.84; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis and TSA indicate that ES offers better long-term efficacy, shorter operation times, less blood loss, and a lower rate of pneumonia compared to SBWC. Therefore, prioritizing ES over SBWC for treating ICH appears to be a reasonable approach.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。