| Literature DB >> 28182164 |
Zhihong Li1, Yuqian Li1, Feifei Xu2, Xi Zhang3, Qiang Tian4, Lihong Li1.
Abstract
Two prevalent therapies for the treatment of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in basal ganglia are, minimally invasive puncture and drainage (MIPD), and endoscopic surgery (ES). Because both surgical techniques are of a minimally invasive nature, they have attracted greater attention in recent years. However, evidence comparing the curative effect of MIPD and ES has been uncertain. The indication for MIPD or ES has been uncertain till now. In the present study, 112 patients with spontaneous ICH in basal ganglia who received MIPD or ES were reviewed retrospectively. Baseline parameters prior to the operation, evacuation rate (ER), perihematoma edema, postoperative complications, and rebleeding incidences were collected. Moreover, 1-year postictus, the long-term functional outcomes of patients with regard to hematoma volume (HV) or Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score were judged, respectively, by the case fatality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), Barthel Index (BI), and modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The ES group had a higher ER than the MIPD group on postoperative day 1. The MIPD group had fewer adverse outcomes, which included less perihematoma edema, anesthetic time, and blood loss, than the ES group. The functional outcomes represented by GOS, BI, and mRS were better in the MIPD group than in the ES group for patients with HV 30-60 mL or GCS score 9-14. These results indicate that ES is more effective in evacuating hematoma in basal ganglia, while MIPD is less invasive than ES. Patients with HV 30-60 mL or GCS score 9-14 may benefit more from the MIPD procedure than from ES.Entities:
Keywords: basal ganglia; endoscopy; intracerebral hemorrhage; minimal invasive; puncture
Year: 2017 PMID: 28182164 PMCID: PMC5279848 DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S120368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat ISSN: 1176-6328 Impact factor: 2.570
Clinical baseline parameters
| Clinical parameters | MIPD (54) | ES (58) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female (n/%) | 29/53.7 | 33/55.9 | 0.734 |
| Age (years) | 59.7±7.5 | 61.8±9.9 | 0.599 |
| Weight (kg) | 70.7±7.8 | 71.5±7.0 | 0.813 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 175.8±15.2 | 172.3±18.6 | 0.650 |
| Pre-o HV (mL) | 63.1±15.8 | 64.3±17.2 | 0.703 |
| 30–60 mL (n/%) | 29/53.7 | 32/55.2 | 0.876 |
| >60 mL (n/%) | 25/46.3 | 26/44.8 | |
| Direction (left/right) | 29/25 | 28/30 | 0.566 |
| IVH (n/%) | 16/29.6 | 18/31.0 | 0.872 |
| GCS score | 8.4±2.9 | 8.6±3.0 | 0.801 |
| 9–14 (n/%) | 26/48.1 | 28/48.3 | 0.989 |
| 4–8 (n/%) | 28/51.9 | 30/51.7 | |
| ICH score | 2.31±0.505 | 2.25±0.512 | 0.566 |
| Diabetes (n/%) | 7/12.9 | 10/17.2 | 0.528 |
Abbreviations: MIPD, minimally invasive puncture and drainage; ES, endoscopic surgery; SBP, systolic blood pressure; Pre-o, preoperative; HV, hematoma volume; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage.
Short-term outcomes
| Clinical outcomes | MIPD (54) | ES (58) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ER at day 1 (%) | 41.2±20.0 | 82.7±23.7 | 0.001 |
| ER at day 3 (%) | 86.2±10.3 | 85.5±11.3 | 0.886 |
| Residue hematoma (mL) | 9.0±2.8 | 8.6±2.5 | 0.740 |
| PHE at day 7 (mL) | 64.3±14.2 | 77.2±8.5 | 0.024 |
| Rebleeding (n/%) | 2/3.7 | 3/5.1 | 0.707 |
| Anesthetic time (minutes) | 50.9±5.6 | 90.9±10.0 | <0.001 |
| Blood loss (mL) | 26.3±6.8 | 123.6±19.5 | <0.001 |
| Pulmonary infection (n/%) | 2/3.7 | 4/6.8 | 0.453 |
| Infectious meningitis (n/%) | 1/1.9 | 2/3.4 | 0.601 |
| Hypoproteinemia (n/%) | 4/7.4 | 14/24.1 | 0.016 |
| Digestive tract ulcer (n/%) | 5/9.3 | 14/24.1 | 0.036 |
| Renal failure (n/%) | 2/3.7 | 1/1.7 | 0.517 |
| Epilepsy (n/%) | 2/3.7 | 3/5.1 | 0.707 |
| Hospitalization length (day) | 9.6±2.8 | 10.4±3.1 | 0.549 |
| Total expenditure (¥, thousand yuan) | 39.3±3.6 | 45.2±4.7 | 0.006 |
Abbreviations: MIPD, minimally invasive puncture and drainage; ES, endoscopic surgery; ER, evacuation rate; PHE, perihematoma edema.
Figure 1Computed tomography scan before operation (A), at postoperative day 2 (B), and postictus day 7 (C) for a minimal invasive puncture and drainage patient.
Note: The perihematomal edema was semiautomatically threshold-based segmented and outlined with red line (C).
Figure 2Computed tomography scan before operation (A), at postoperative day 1 (B), and postictus day 7 (C) for an endoscopic surgery patient.
Note: The perihematomal edema was semiautomatically threshold-based segmented and outlined with red line (C).
Long-term outcomes
| Clinical outcomes | MIPD | ES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case fatality (n/%) | 12/22.2 | 14/24.1 | 0.810 |
| GOS | |||
| GCS 9–14 | 4.3±0.6 | 3.9±0.7 | 0.030 |
| GCS 4–8 | 3.5±1.0 | 3.4±0.8 | 0.743 |
| HV 30–60 mL | 4.3±0.6 | 3.8±0.9 | 0.023 |
| HV >60 mL | 3.3±0.8 | 3.4±0.6 | 0.581 |
| BI | |||
| GCS 9–14 | 84.6±19.4 | 77.3±13.4 | 0.040 |
| GCS 4–8 | 73.3±14.5 | 75.3±11.4 | 0.651 |
| HV 30–60 mL | 83.8±10.8 | 76.7±13.1 | 0.046 |
| HV >60 mL | 72.8±14.6 | 74.8±12.1 | 0.651 |
| mRS | |||
| GCS 9–14 | 1.7±0.9 | 2.3±0.7 | 0.023 |
| GCS 4–8 | 2.4±1.2 | 2.5±1.1 | 0.772 |
| HV 30–60 mL | 1.9±1.1 | 2.6±1.0 | 0.034 |
| HV >60 mL | 2.6±1.2 | 2.4±1.1 | 0.678 |
Abbreviations: MIPD, minimally invasive puncture and drainage; ES, endoscopic surgery; GOS, Glasgow Outcome Scale; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; HV, hematoma volume; BI, Barthel Index; mRS, modified Rankin Scale.