Object In this paper the authors systematically evaluate the results of different surgical procedures for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Methods The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases were scrutinized according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement, after which only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included. At least 2 different neurosurgical procedures in the management of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) had to be evaluated. Included studies were assessed for the risk of bias. Recurrence rates, complications, and outcome including mortality were taken as outcome measures. Statistical heterogeneity in each meta-analysis was assessed using the T2 (tau-squared), I2, and chi-square tests. The DerSimonian-Laird method was used to calculate the summary estimates using the fixed-effect model in meta-analysis. Results Of the 297 studies identified, 19 RCTs were included. Of them, 7 studies evaluated the use of postoperative drainage, of which the meta-analysis showed a pooled OR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.21–0.60; p < 0.001) in favor of drainage. Four studies compared twist drill and bur hole procedures. No significant differences between the 2 methods were present, but heterogeneity was considered to be significant. Three studies directly compared the use of irrigation before drainage. A fixed-effects meta-analysis showed a pooled OR of 0.49 (95% CI 0.21–1.14; p = 0.10) in favor of irrigation. Two studies evaluated postoperative posture. The available data did not reveal a significant advantage in favor of the postoperative supine posture. Regarding positioning of the catheter used for drainage, it was shown that a frontal catheter led to a better outcome. One study compared duration of drainage, showing that 48 hours of drainage was as effective as 96 hours of drainage. Conclusions Postoperative drainage has the advantage of reducing recurrence without increasing complications. The use of a bur hole or twist drill does not seem to make any significant difference in recurrence rates or other outcome measures. It seems that irrigation may lead to a better outcome. These results may lead to more standardized procedures.
Immediate placement with immediate provisionalization of dental implants in the esthetic zone results in excellent short-term treatment outcome in terms of implant survival and minimal change of peri-implant soft and hard tissue dimensions.
Summary Post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a serious and still frequently observed complication of solid organ transplantation. Despite the recent introduction of anti B‐cell monoclonal antibody therapy (rituximab) for treatment of PTLD, mortality rates remain high. Because PTLD often presents in a nonspecific way in clinically unsuspected patients, it is a major challenge to diagnose PTLD at an early stage. Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)‐DNA load monitoring is a promising tool for the identification of patients at risk for PTLD development. However, there are some limitations of this method, and not all patients at risk for PTLD can be identified by EBV‐DNA measurements alone. Therefore, it is of major importance to recognize early clinical signs and symptoms of PTLD. In this review, risk factors for PTLD development, disease presentation, and methods for early detection will be discussed. Special attention is given to allograft and digestive tract localization and the relation with time of onset of PTLD. The value and pitfalls of EBV‐DNA load monitoring are discussed. In addition, because fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)‐positron emission tomography (PET) has shown to be a powerful tool for staging and response evaluation of malignant lymphoma, the role of FDG‐PET for early diagnosis and staging of PTLD is addressed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.