4.3 Article

A Compendium of Modern Minimally Invasive Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation Techniques

期刊

OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 710-720

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ons/opz308

关键词

Intracerebral hemorrhage; Hemorrhagic stroke; Minimally invasive surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) evacuation has gained popularitywith success in early-phase clinical trials. This procedure, however, is performed in very different ways around the world. OBJECTIVE: To provide a technical description of these strategies that facilitates comparison and aids decisions in which surgery to perform, and to inform further improvements in minimally invasive ICH evacuation. METHODS: Major authors of clinical trials evaluating each of the main techniques were contacted and asked to supply a case example and technical description of their respective surgeries. RESULTS: Five major techniques are presented including stereotactic thrombolysis, craniopuncture, endoscopic, endoscope-assisted, and endoport-mediated. Techniques differ in numerous ways including the size of the cranial access, the size of the access corridor through the brain to the hematoma, and the evacuation strategy. Regarding cranial access, a burr hole is created in stereotactic thrombolysis and craniopuncture, a small craniectomy in endoscopic, and a small craniotomy in the other 2. Access corridors through the parenchyma range from3mmin craniopuncture to 13.5mmin the endoportmediated evacuation. Regarding evacuation strategies, stereotactic thrombolysis and craniopuncture rely on passive drainage from a catheter placed during surgery that remains in place for multiple days, while the other 3 techniques rely on active evacuation with suction and bipolar cautery. CONCLUSION: Future comparative clinical trials may identify the advantageous components of each strategy and contribute to improved outcomes in this patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据