Evidence Hub

Time to and Possible Risk Factors for Recurrence after Burr-hole Drainage of Chronic Subdural Hematoma - A Subanalysis of the cSDH-Drain Randomized Controlled Trial

K. Lutz, M. Kamenova, Sabine Schaedelin, R. Guzman, L. Mariani, J. Fandino, J. Soleman

World Neurosurgery, 2019

220 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The randomized controlled chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH)-Drain-trial showed comparable recurrence rates after placing a subperiosteal drain (SPD) or a subdural drain (SDD) for surgically drained cSDH, while SDD was associated with higher rates of infection and iatrogenic brain injury. This subanalysis examines the time to recurrence and possible risk factors for recurrence after burr-hole drainage of cSDH and placement of a SPD compared to a SDD.

METHODS

We included 220 patients from the preceding cSDH-Drain-trial. Time to recurrence was compared within the two groups using a univariate cox-proportional hazards model. Apart from intraoperative brain expansion (iBE), defined by residual hematoma-cavity on computer tomography (CT) 24 hours after surgery, other possible pre-, intra- and postoperative risk factors for recurrence were assessed through univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Median time to recurrence was 22.5 days (IQR 9.25 - 52 days, range 0-81) showing no difference between the two groups. Less iBE (p=0.019), lower GOS at discharge (p=0.007) and lower GCS at 24 hours (p=0.037) were strongly associated with recurrence on univariate analysis. After multivariate logistic analysis, less iBE (OR 1.10, CI: 1.01; 1.21; p=0.03) remained the only significant risk factor associated with recurrence. When comparing the risk factors within the two groups, less iBE and lower GOS at release were associated with recurrence, only in the SDD-group.

CONCLUSION…

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: 220 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