These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Endoscopic Surgery versus External Ventricular Drainage Surgery for Severe Intraventricular Hemorrhage.
    Author: Song P, Duan FL, Cai Q, Wu JL, Chen XB, Wang Y, Huang CG, Li JQ, He ZQ, Huang QC, Liu M, Zhang YG, Luo M.
    Journal: Curr Med Sci; 2018 Oct; 38(5):880-887. PubMed ID: 30341524.
    Abstract:
    The efficacy and applied value of endoscopic hematoma evacuation vs. external ventricular drainage (EVD) in the treatment of severe ventricular hemorrhage (IVH) were explored and compared. From Jan. 2015 to Dec. 2016, the clinical data of 42 cases of IVH were retrospectively analyzed, including 18 patients undergoing endoscopic hematoma evacuation (group A), and 24 patients receiving EVD (group B). The hematoma clearance rate was calculated by 3D Slicer software, and complications and outcomes were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in age, sex and Graeb score between groups A and B (P>0.05). The hematoma clearance rate was 70.81%±27.64% in group A and 48.72%±36.58% in group B with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The operative time in groups A and B was 72.45±25.26 min and 28.54±15.27 min, respectively (P<0.05). The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score increased from 9.28±2.72 at baseline to 11.83±2.91 at 1 week postoperatively in group A, and from 8.25±2.62 at baseline to 10.79±4.12 at 1 week postoperatively in group B (P<0.05). The length of hospital stay was 12.67±5.97 days in group A and 17.33±8.91 days in group B with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The GOS scores at 6 months after surgery were 3.83±1.12 in group A, and 2.75±1.23 in group B (P<0.05). These results suggested that endoscopic hematoma evacuation has an advantage of a higher hematoma clearance rate, fewer complications and better outcomes in the treatment of severe IVH, indicating it is a safe, effective and promising approach for severe IVH.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]