Evidence Hub

Burr hole craniostomy versus minicraniotomy in chronic subdural hematoma: a comparative cohort study

S. Zolfaghari, J. Bartek, I. Strom, Felix Djärf, San S. Wong, Nils Ståhl, A. Jakola, Henrietta Nittby Redebrandt

Acta Neurochirurgica, 2021

1,003 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common neurosurgical diseases. In surgical management of CSDH, there is a lack of standardized guidelines concerning surgical techniques and a lack of consensus on which technique(s) are optimal. Neurosurgical centers have shown a wide variation in surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare two different surgical techniques, one burr hole craniostomy with an active subgaleal drain (BHC) and minicraniotomy with a passive subdural drain (MC). We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study at two neurosurgical centers in Sweden which included patients with unilateral CSDHs that received surgical treatment with either BHC or MC. The primary outcomes in comparison of the techniques were 30-day mortality, recurrence rate, and complications according to the Landriel Ibañez grading system for complications. A total of 1003 patients were included in this study. The BHC subgroup included 560 patients, and the MC subgroup included 443 patients. A 30-day mortality when comparing BHC (2.3%) and MC (2.7%) was similar (p = 0.701). Comparing recurrence rate for BHC (8.9%) and MC (10.8%) showed no significant difference (p = 0.336). We found that medical complications were significantly more common in the MC group (p = 0.001). Surgical complications (type IIb) was also associated with the MC group (n = 10, p = 0.003). Out of the 10 patients with type IIb complications in the MC group, 8 had postoperative acute…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,003 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