2018
DOI: 10.23736/s0390-5616.18.04557-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimally invasive approaches for the evacuation of intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results showed that the NIHSS score and the SSS score of the experimental group were 3:89 ± 1:95 points and 10:67 ± 1:76 points in the experimental group one month after the surgery, which were significantly lower than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0:05). Cavallo et al [24] conducted a systematic review on the application of minimally invasive aspiration in ICH, and the results showed that minimally invasive technology is still in dispute in the treatment of ICH. However, many clinical studies have shown that minimally invasive treatment is associated with significantly improved results compared with conservative treatment and traditional surgical removal strategies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results showed that the NIHSS score and the SSS score of the experimental group were 3:89 ± 1:95 points and 10:67 ± 1:76 points in the experimental group one month after the surgery, which were significantly lower than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0:05). Cavallo et al [24] conducted a systematic review on the application of minimally invasive aspiration in ICH, and the results showed that minimally invasive technology is still in dispute in the treatment of ICH. However, many clinical studies have shown that minimally invasive treatment is associated with significantly improved results compared with conservative treatment and traditional surgical removal strategies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Main reason: When using the temporal approach to remove an intracerebral hematoma, it is easy to limit the direct viewing angle because of the consistency between the line of sight and the length of the hematoma, thereby reducing the hematoma clearance rate. [ 20 , 21 ] Even by adjusting the direction of neuroendoscopy and using angled neuroendoscopy to increase the visual range, the location of the hematoma can increase brain tissue damage, which is not conducive to disease progression, and the temporal approach is prone to transverse damage to the conduction tract. The line of sight and length of the hematoma in the frontal lobe approach are basically consistent and roughly parallel to the conduction tract, which provides better protection for the conduction tract than the temporal approach, improves neurological function, and ensures the effectiveness of disease prognosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lack of clear surgical benefit noted in the STICH trial may be attributed to the permanence of deficits upon BG hemorrhage as surgical intervention cannot restore what was lost. Most surgeons in the trial employed a craniotomy (75%), despite nearly 42% of hematoma originating within the BG or thalamus, raising questions as to whether a more minimally invasive surgical approach would lead to better outcomes [ 107 ]. Early surgery was associated with a slightly favorable outcome when the hematoma was located within 1 cm from the cortical surface, which may have been a reflection of the advantages of craniotomy for superficial resection, though when this subgroup was explored in a follow-up trial (STICH II) in 2013 [ 15 ], the findings remained neutral.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%