Evidence Hub

Minimally invasive surgeries for spontaneous hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (MISICH): a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Xing-Hua Xu, Hua-Ping Zhang, Jia-Shu Zhang, Ming Luo, Qun Wang, Yining Zhao, Zhichao Gan, Bai-Nan Xu et al.

BMC Medicine, 2024

733 participants · 60 citations

Abstract

Background Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a common stroke type with high morbidity and mortality. There are mainly three surgical methods for treating ICH. Unfortunately, thus far, no specific surgical method has been proven to be the most effective. We carried out this study to investigate whether minimally invasive surgeries with endoscopic surgery or stereotactic aspiration (frameless navigated aspiration) will improve functional outcomes in patients with supratentorial ICH compared with small-bone flap craniotomy. Methods In this parallel-group multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted at 16 centers, patients with supratentorial hypertensive ICH were randomized to receive endoscopic surgery, stereotactic aspiration, or craniotomy at a 1:1:1 ratio from July 2016 to June 2022. The follow-up duration was 6 months. Patients were randomized to receive endoscopic evacuation, stereotactic aspiration, or small-bone flap craniotomy. The primary outcome was favorable functional outcome, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0–2 at the 6-month follow-up. Results A total of 733 patients were randomly allocated to three groups: 243 to the endoscopy group, 247 to the aspiration group, and 243 to the craniotomy group. Finally, 721 patients (239 in the endoscopy group, 246 in the aspiration group, and 236 in the craniotomy group) received treatment and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Primary efficacy…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 733 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free