PURPOSE: To assess the therapeutic value of two different drainage catheters in treating chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of drainage catheters can be used to treat CSDH according to the position of holes in the catheter: open-type or closed-type catheter. In this retrospective study, 199 total patients with CSDH were reviewed according to catheter type. Among them, 84 patients were and 113 in the closed-type group (holes positioned within the distal- most 1 cm of the catheter). The surgeon selected the catheter type. Total drainage volume, initial drainage volume within 2 days, percentage of initial drainage volume per total drainage volume, duration of catheter insertion, and reoperation rate were compared. RESULTS: Total drainage volume was not different between the two groups (p=0.333). The initial drainage volume within 2 days was larger in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.024), but the percentage of initial drainage volume per total drainage volume was not different (p=0.354). The duration of catheter insertion was shorter in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.015). The reoperation rate of CSDH was also higher in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.004). CONCLUSION: CSDH drainage with an open-type catheter is faster compared with a closed-type catheter, but total drainage volume is similar and reoperation rate is higher. Therefore, the open-type catheter for CSDH drainage has limited clinical value.
PURPOSE: To assess the therapeutic value of two different drainage catheters in treating chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of drainage catheters can be used to treat CSDH according to the position of holes in the catheter: open-type or closed-type catheter. In this retrospective study, 199 total patients with CSDH were reviewed according to catheter type. Among them, 84 patients were and 113 in the closed-type group (holes positioned within the distal- most 1 cm of the catheter). The surgeon selected the catheter type. Total drainage volume, initial drainage volume within 2 days, percentage of initial drainage volume per total drainage volume, duration of catheter insertion, and reoperation rate were compared. RESULTS: Total drainage volume was not different between the two groups (p=0.333). The initial drainage volume within 2 days was larger in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.024), but the percentage of initial drainage volume per total drainage volume was not different (p=0.354). The duration of catheter insertion was shorter in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.015). The reoperation rate of CSDH was also higher in the open-type group than closed-type group (p=0.004). CONCLUSION: CSDH drainage with an open-type catheter is faster compared with a closed-type catheter, but total drainage volume is similar and reoperation rate is higher. Therefore, the open-type catheter for CSDH drainage has limited clinical value.