A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

A prospective randomised study to compare the utility and outcomes of subdural and subperiosteal drains for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The usage of a drain following evacuation of a chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is known to reduce recurrence. In this study we aim to compare the clinical outcomes and recurrence rate of utilising two different types of drains (subperiosteal and subdural drain) following drainage of a CSDH.

Methods: Prospective randomised single-centre study analysing 50 patients who underwent CSDH treatment. Two types of drains, subperiosteal (SPD) and subdural (SDD), were utilised on consecutive alternate patients following burr-hole craniostomy, with a total of 25 patients in each group. The drains were left in for 48-h duration and then removed. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was used for outcome measurement at 3 and 6 months.

Results: Data analysis was performed by unpaired t test with Welch's correction. It was observed that none of the patients in either group had haematoma recurrence during a 6-month follow-up, and a significant difference in outcome was noted at 6 months (p = 0.0118) more than at 3 months (p = 0.0493) according to the statistical analysis. Postoperative seizure and inadvertent placement of the subdural drain into the brain parenchyma were the two complications noted in this study. Anticoagulant use prior to the surgery did not affect the outcome in either group.

Conclusions: We conclude there was no recurrence of CSDH utilising the SDD and SPD following burr-hole craniostomy. The mRS measurement at the 6-month follow-up was found to be statistically significant, with better outcomes with utilisation of the SPD. The SPD may thus prove to be more beneficial than the SDD in the treatment of CSDH. A multi-centre study with a larger group of patients is recommended to reinforce the results from our study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1483-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prospective randomised
8
chronic subdural
8
subdural haematoma
8
types drains
8
drains subperiosteal
8
subdural drain
8
burr-hole craniostomy
8
patients group
8
6-month follow-up
8
study
6

Similar Publications