Active Versus Passive Drainage Systems for Subdural Hematomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Porto Junior Silvio1ORCID,Meira Davi Amorim1,da Cunha Beatriz Lopes Bernardo2,Fontes Jefferson Heber Marques3,Pustilnik Hugo Nunes4,Medrado Nunes Gabriel Souza5,Cerqueira Gabriel Araujo1,Silva da Paz Matheus Gomes da6,Alcântara Tancredo67,Dourado Jules Carlos6,Miranda de Avelar Leonardo6

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Bahiana School of Medicine, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

2. Department of Medicine, University of Bahia State, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

3. Department of Medicine, Metropolitan Union of Education and Culture, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

4. Department of Medicine, University of Salvador, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

5. Department of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

6. Department of Neurosurgery, General Hospital Roberto Santos, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;

7. Department of Neurosurgery, NICC—Núcleo Integrado do Cérebro e Coluna, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) management involves various surgical techniques, with drainage systems playing a pivotal role. While passive drainage (PD) and active drainage (AD) are both used, their efficacy remains contentious. Some studies favor PD for lower recurrence rates, while others suggest AD superiority. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to address this controversy, aiming to provide clarity on optimal drainage modalities post-CSDH evacuation. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing active vs PD for subdural hematomas. Data extraction involved independent researchers, and statistical analysis was conducted using R software. The assessment of risk of bias was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions framework and the Risk Of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, involving 1949 patients with AD and 1346 with PD, no significant differences were observed in recurrence rates between the active (13.6%) and passive (16.4%) drainage groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.58-1.31). Similarly, for complications, infection, hemorrhage, and mortality, no significant disparities were found between the 2 drainage modalities. Complication rates were 7.5% for active and 12.6% for PD (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.36-1.52). Infection rates were available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 2% and 2.6%, respectively (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.24-4.01). Hemorrhage rates were also available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.11-1.81). Mortality rates were 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study found no significant difference between passive and AD for managing complications, recurrence, infection, hemorrhage, or mortality in CSDH cases. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed for clarity.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3