Dataset Information

Benefits of the Subdural Evacuating Port System (SEPS) Procedure Over Traditional Craniotomy for Subdural Hematoma Evacuation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There remains no consensus on the optimal primary intervention for subdural hematoma (SDH). Although historically favored, craniotomy carries substantial morbidity and incurs significant costs. Contrastingly, the subdural evacuating port system (SEPS) is a minimally invasive bedside procedure. We assessed the benefits of SEPS over traditional craniotomy for SDH evacuation.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study of SDH patients receiving craniotomy or SEPS between 2012 and 2017 was performed. Information regarding demographics, medical history, presentation, surgical outcomes, cost, and complications was collected. Pre- and postoperative hematoma volumes were calculated using 3D image segmentation using Vitrea software. Multivariate regression models were employed to assess the influence of intervention choice.

Results

Of 107 patients, 68 underwent craniotomy and 39 underwent SEPS. There were no differences in age, sex, blood thinner use, platelet count, INR, hematoma lateralization, age, volume, or midline shift at presentation between intervention groups. Although there was no difference in percent residual hematoma volume 24-hour postintervention (44.1% vs 45.1%, P = .894), SEPS was associated with lower hospitalization costs ($108 391 vs $166 318, *P = .002), shorter length of stay (4.0 vs 5.8 days, *P = .0002), and fewer postoperative seizures (2.6% vs 17.7%, *P = .048). Reoperation rate was higher after SEPS overall (33.3% vs 13.2%, *P = .048) but comparable to craniotomy in chronic SDH (12.50% vs 7.69%, P = 1.000).

Conclusion

In this retrospective cohort, SEPS was noninferior to craniotomy at reducing SDH hematoma volume. The SEPS procedure was also associated with decreased length of stay hospitalization costs, and postoperative seizures and demonstrated a comparable recurrence rate to craniotomy for chronic SDH in particular.

SUBMITTER: Golub D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7495698 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study systematically reviews the clinical efficacy and safety of twist-drill craniostomy with hollow screws in chronic subdural hematoma treatment.MethodsA computerized search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization International Trial Registry platform, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Database was performed to retrieve randomized controlled trials or case-control trials using twist-drill craniostomy (TDC) with hollow screws for the evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma from the date of databases' inception to July 2021. Two investigators independently screened the studies and extracted data in strict accordance with pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.3 software or STATA was used for meta-analysis after evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies.ResultsA total of 4 randomized controlled trials and 16 case-control trials with a total of 2,536 cases were included. Results of the meta-analysis showed that the surgical success rate and postoperative recurrence rate of TDC with hollow screws were slightly higher compared to the burr hole craniostomy (BHC) group, but showed no statistical significance (RR = 1.03, P = 0.05; RR = 1.13, P = 0.50). However, subgroup analysis showed that the use of YL-1 needle had a higher success rate and lower recurrence rate (RR = 1.05, P = 0.02 < 0.05; RR = 0.584, P = 0.002), and TDC with hollow screws had a lower incidence rate of postoperative complications and postoperative acute intracranial hemorrhage compared with BHC, also revealing an overall shorter hospital stay (RR = 0.57, P = 0.0002 < 0.05; RR = 0.584, P = 0.027 < 0.05; WMD = -3.752, P < 0.001). However, the postoperative mortality rate was practically the same between the two groups (OR = 1.01, P = 0.95 > 0.05).ConclusionTwist-drill craniostomy with hollow screws is not inferior or superior to BHC in efficacy, and this strategy is safer and minimally invasive, which is reflected in a lower incidence of acute intracranial hemorrhage, overall complication rate, and length of hospital stay.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021270835.

Project description:BackgroundLimited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582).FindingsBetween December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]).InterpretationWe found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling.FundingHersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.

Project description:BackgroundThe aesthetic outcome after burr hole trepanation for the evacuation of chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH) is often unsatisfactory, as the bony skull defects may cause visible skin depressions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of burr hole cover placement to improve the aesthetic outcome.MethodsWe reviewed consecutive patients treated by burr hole trepanation for cSDH with or without placement of burr hole covers by a single surgeon between October 2016 and May 2018. The clinical data, including complications, were derived from the institution's prospective patient registry. The primary endpoint was the aesthetic outcome, as perceived by patients on the aesthetic numeric analog (ANA) scale, assessed by means of a standardized telephone interview. Secondary endpoints were skin depression rates and wound pain, as well as complications.ResultsFrom n = 33, outcome evaluation was possible in n = 28 patients (n = 24 male; mean age of 70.4 ± 16.1 years) with uni- (n = 20) or bilateral cSDH (n = 8). A total of 14 burr hole covers were placed in 11 patients and compared to 50 burr holes that were not covered. Patient satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome was significantly better for covered burr holes (mean ANA 9.3 ± 0.74 vs. 7.9 ± 1.0; p < 0.001). Skin depressions occurred over 7% (n = 1/14) of covered and over 92% (n = 46/50) of uncovered burr holes (p < 0.001). There was no difference in wound pain (p = 0.903) between covered and uncovered sites. No surgical site infection, cSDH recurrence, or material failure was encountered in patients who had received a burr hole plate.ConclusionsIn this retrospective series, placement of burr hole covers was associated with improved aesthetic outcome, likely due to reduction of skin depressions. A randomized controlled trial is developed to investigate whether adding burr hole covers results in superior aesthetic outcomes, without increasing the risk for complications.