Leveron&Nexovas
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 157  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (1,179 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Material and Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed174    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 535-542

Comparison of Craniotomy and Stereotactic Aspiration Plus Thrombolysis in Isolated Capsulo-Ganglionic Hematoma: A Retrospective Analyses


1 Department of Neurosurgery, DKS Post Graduate Institute and Research Center, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
2 Department of Neurosurgery, Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
3 Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, DKS Post Graduate Institute and Research Center, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
4 Department of Critical Care, Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

Date of Submission31-Mar-2021
Date of Decision02-Aug-2021
Date of Acceptance21-Aug-2021
Date of Web Publication3-May-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
Department of Neurosurgery, DKS Post Graduate Institute and Research Centre, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492 001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.344635

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Published trials and meta-analyses have suggested the role of surgery in select patients of hypertensive intracerebral hematoma.
Objective: This study compares two methods of hematoma aspiration, craniotomy, and stereotactic aspiration.
Methods and Material: We conducted retrospective analyses of patients who underwent surgery for capsule-ganglionic hematoma during Jan-2015–Dec-2019. Surgical, intensive-care parameters, and neurological outcomes were compared. Patients operated for Capsule-Ganglionic hypertensive hematomas, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 5-12, hematoma volume ≥30 ml, no concomitant IVH, age <80 years were included.
Results: A total of 173 patients were included (90 craniotomy and 83 stereotactic aspiration groups). Both groups were equivalent in preoperative parameters (P > 0.5). There were no significant differences in residual hematoma volumes, surgical site infections/Meningitis, and chances of re-bleed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The number of days on ventilation, ICU-stay, and hospital-stay were higher in craniotomy group (P < 0.001). Mean Modified Ranking Score (MRS) was lower (P 0.01) in the stereotactic aspiration group. A higher number of patients in the stereotactic aspiration group achieved good MRS (0-2) (P 0.02). Overall case-fatality rate was 38/173 (21.96%) (craniotomy - 24/90 (26.66%), stereotactic aspiration - 14/83 (16.86%), P 0.12). In left-side hematomas, mean MRS was not different between both methods, whereas it differed in the right-side hematomas. On step-wise logistic regression analysis, predicting parameters for the poor outcome (MRS 3-6) were GCS 5-8 (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.38), Left-side (OR 1.75), and craniotomy as a method of evacuation (OR 1.70).
Conclusions: Stereotactic aspiration of the hematoma has the superior edge over craniotomy. Neurological and care parameters are significantly better with stereotactic aspiration. Its safety and surgical performance parallel craniotomy.


Keywords: Basal ganglia hematoma, capsulo-ganglionic hematoma, ICH, intracerebral hematoma, stereotactic aspiration
Key Message: Although the role of surgery in intracerebral hematoma is an ongoing debate, in appropriate surgical candidates, minimally invasive surgery like stereotactic aspiration should be preferred over conventional craniotomy.


How to cite this article:
Kumar S, Madhariya SN, Singh D, Agrawal R, Sahana D, Mourya A. Comparison of Craniotomy and Stereotactic Aspiration Plus Thrombolysis in Isolated Capsulo-Ganglionic Hematoma: A Retrospective Analyses. Neurol India 2022;70:535-42

How to cite this URL:
Kumar S, Madhariya SN, Singh D, Agrawal R, Sahana D, Mourya A. Comparison of Craniotomy and Stereotactic Aspiration Plus Thrombolysis in Isolated Capsulo-Ganglionic Hematoma: A Retrospective Analyses. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 22];70:535-42. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/2/535/344635




Hypertension is a pandemic affecting nearly 1.28 billion people globally. One in every four males and one in every five females are hypertensive.[1] In India, the prevalence rates vary from 25 to 30% and are responsible for nearly half of all strokes.[2],[3],[4] The cumulative incidence of stroke range is 105–152/100,000 persons/year in India, and 10–20% of all strokes are hemorrhagic.[5] With these estimates, in a country of 1.38 billion people, nearly 2–3 lakhs suffer from Intra-cerebral hemorrhage (ICH) every year. Globally, >5 million people suffer from hemorrhagic stroke.[6]

With such an enormous disease burden, management issues are still debatable and far from ideal. Although STICH-1 and 2 trials did not show significant advantages of early surgery over best medical management, decision making in ICH is dynamic over a timeline and depends upon the clinical status and radiological findings. It is worth notable that 26% of patients in STICH-1 and 21% in STICH-2 trials crossed over to the surgical arm due to neurological deterioration.[7],[8] Recently, a meta-analysis of pooled data of STICH-1 and 2 subjects had shown that surgical interventions might not be beneficial in extremes of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score but do have the edge over medical treatment in GCS 10-13.[9]

The outcome of these trials suggests that there are subsets of patients who may benefit from surgery in reducing mortality at the cost of morbidity. The tested interventions for hematoma evacuation are craniotomy, endoscopy, and stereotactic aspiration plus thrombolysis. In both STICH trials, the most commonly adopted surgical procedure was craniotomy, which does not address the outcome of minimally invasive procedures. Recent meta-analysis had shown the benefit of minimally invasive surgery over conventional treatment in select patients of supratentorial ICH.[10],[11] This study aims to compare the outcomes of two techniques of hematoma evacuation (Craniotomy and Stereotactic Aspiration plus thrombolysis) in capsule-ganglionic locations.


 » Material and Methods Top


We conducted a retrospective data analysis from January 2015–December 2019 (5 years), recorded the follow-up in Jan–Feb 2021, and obtained consent. Medical and radiological data were analyzed. We designed the inclusion criteria to keep the uniformity of the ICH score of 2 in both treatment arms.[12] The Inclusion criteria were – patients operated for Capsule-Ganglionic hypertensive hematomas, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at presentation 5-12, hematoma volume ≥30 ml, no concomitant IVH, age <80 years, no coagulopathy, and with a minimal follow-up of 1 year. All patients received anti-hypertensive agents, Mannitol and Lasix, Tranexamic acid, and intensive care as part of medical management.

This study included 16 variables - Age, Gender, Hematoma side (Left/Right), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at presentation, Preoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Preoperative hematoma volume, Surgical method, Postoperative hematoma volume, Number of full days on the ventilator (Ventilator Days), ICU stay, hospital stay, surgical site infection (SSI)/Meningitis, number of Re-bleed, Modified Ranking Score (MRS) at last follow-up, and Follow-up duration.

We dichotomized GCS into Group-A (GCS 5-8) and Group-B (GCS 9-12). Percentage of hematoma reduction by any of the surgical methods was categorized into Group 1 (>75% reduction), Group 2 (51-75% reduction), Group 3 (26-50% reduction), and Group 4 (≤25% reduction).

Outcomes were assessed in terms of surgical parameters, intensive care parameters, and neurological parameters. MRS scores were categorized into two groups considering different criteria proposed in the literature.[13] Conventionally, MRS of 0-2 was considered a good outcome, and a score of 3-6 was considered a poor outcome. As per the MISTIE trial, 0-3 MRS was considered a good outcome, and 4-6 was considered a poor outcome.

Statistical analysis was done on software JASP (version 0.14.1, Amsterdam). Continuous and categorical variables were expressed as mean ± SD. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables. Continuous variables were analyzed by independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Step-wise logistic regression was applied to observe the influence of variables on outcome. Two-tailed P values were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

Surgical technique

After a standard-sized (nearly 15 X 12 cm) craniotomy, the hematoma was removed, mostly through the middle frontal gyrus under the microscope. We were conservative for hematoma removal on the insular side to avoid bleeding encounters with lenticulostriate arteries.

The technique of stereotactic aspiration was mostly as per MISTIE protocol.[14] The “Leksell stereotactic frame” was applied under local anesthesia, and along the X, Y, and Z-axis, calculations were done on the CT console. The catheter tip was targeted to the hematoma's posterior-most end along the longest axis through the center. We used commercially available external ventricular drain (EVD) as a drainage catheter. The catheter position was clinically confirmed by gravity drainage with dark-colored blood at the tip. The catheter was tunneled subcutaneously for 5 cm or more and fixed. No attempt was made during surgery to aspirate the hematoma. All patients were subjected to an immediate CT scan for radiological confirmation. Alteplase 1 mg diluted in 2-ml normal saline was installed, and the catheter was closed with a three-way stop-cock connected to a drainage bag. After 1 hour, gravity drainage was allowed. A total of nine doses were used at 8-hour intervals. A follow-up CT scan was done on postoperative day three. The protocol for catheter removal was either hematoma size <15 ml and reduction in midline shift. In cases of significant residual hematoma, additional doses were installed for two more days.

The stereotactic aspiration group required additional steps like a navigation CT after applying frame, repeated installation of Alteplase, drainage of hematoma, and mobilization for CT scans with EVD in situ.


 » Results Top


A total of 201 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 38 patients were excluded (27-did not complete treatment and left against medical advice and 11 were lost on follow-up). The final analysis included 173 patients (90 in the craniotomy group and 83 in the stereotactic aspiration group). Both groups had no statistical difference in terms of age, gender, SBP, DBP, side of hematoma, preoperative GCS, GCS groups, and preoperative hematoma volume (P > 0.5). The overall mean follow-up was 39.89 ± 18.85 (range 12–72) months. Follow-up was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in the stereotactic aspiration group than in the craniotomy group (25.59 ± 10.80 vs. 53.08 ± 14.58 months) [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparisons of Surgical methods with cohort demographics and outcome parameters

Click here to view


There was no significant difference in residual hematoma volumes, reduction category, SSI/Meningitis, and the chance of re-bleed among both treatment arms in terms of surgical performance (P > 0.05). A total of 6/83 (7.22%) patients required Alteplase installation for >3 days. The number of days on ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay was significantly higher in the craniotomy group (P < 0.001) [Table 1]. A total of 4/83 patients re-bleed in the stereotactic aspiration group. Two of these patients underwent craniotomy, and one survived with MRS 4. Two of the re-bleeds deteriorated to poor GCS beyond rescue.

The mean MRS was significantly lower (P 0.01) in the stereotactic aspiration group (3.25 ± 1.60) as compared to the craniotomy group (3.86 ± 1.56). A significantly higher number of patients (P 0.02) in the stereotactic aspiration group achieved a good MRS score (0-2). Similarly, when MRS was grouped according to the MISTIE trial, the stereotactic aspiration group had a significantly higher number of good outcome (MRS 0-3) patients (P 0.01). The overall case-fatality rate was 38/173 (21.96%), in the craniotomy group 24/90 (26.66%), and in the stereotactic aspiration group 14/83 (16.86%), but this difference was not significant (P 0.12) [Table 1]. Twenty-two patients died in the hospital, whereas 16 were dead on follow-up. The primary reasons for in-hospital deaths were SSI/Meningitis in nine, re-bleed in six, and multi-organ dysfunction in seven cases.

When both surgical methods were compared in terms of the hematoma side, on the left side, there was no significant difference in neurological outcome (P 0.33 or 0.13). On the right side, stereotactic aspiration has a significantly superior edge over craniotomy (P 0.03 or 0.04) [Table 2].
Table 2: Comparison of craniotomy and stereotactic aspiration method between side of hematoma in respect to neurological outcome

Click here to view


The variables for good (MRS 0-2 or MRS 0-3) and poor outcome (MRS 3-6 or MRS 4-6) were analyzed. Patients with good outcomes had a hematoma on the right side (P < 0.001), had significantly lower DBP (P 0.04 or 0.03), higher GCS at presentation (P < 0.001), were in better GCS group–B (P < 0.001), smaller preoperative hematoma volume (P < 0.001 or 0.002), and underwent stereotactic aspiration of the hematoma (P 0.02 or 0.01) [Table 3]. [Figure 1] depicts the MRS score achieved among groups (method, side of hematoma, and GCS groups).
Figure 1: Graphical representation of MRS scores on follow-up with respect to individual parameters. (Original)

Click here to view
Table 3: Evaluation of neurological outcome by Modified Ranking Scale (MRS) with other variables

Click here to view


Analyzing these factors in step-wise logistic regression analysis, DBP, and preoperative hematoma volume failed to sustain their significance in determining outcomes. The significant parameters predicting the poor outcome (MRS 3-6) were GCS 5-8 (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.38), Left side hematoma (OR 1.75), and craniotomy as a method of removal of hematoma (OR 1.70). Similar observations were made when the poor outcome is considered as MRS 4-6 (GCS 5-8: OR 2.64, Left side: OR 2.27, and Craniotomy: OR 1.79) [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Step-wise Logistic Regression analysis- Dependent variable - MRS groups, Covariates – Age, Systolic BP, Diastolic BP, Hematoma Volume preoperative, Hematoma Volume postoperative, Factors – GCS Groups, Side, Reduction category, Gender, Method. Analyses include intercept using null model hypothesis. Poor MRS is coded as class I. The lower half of the figure depicts the ROC curve and test performance metrics. (Original)

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Cerebral compliance is the capability of the brain to buffer an increased intracranial volume without a significant rise in ICP. As the volume–pressure relationship is not linear, after a period of spatial compensation, ICP rises exponentially. The pressure–volume index (PVI) is the volume required to raise the ICP by a factor of 10, and in the normal adult brain, it varies as 22–30 ml.[15],[16] Thus, it is reasonable to believe that patients with large hematoma who show signs of raised ICP or impending herniation may have better survival rates than medical management alone.[17] Hematoma removal also has potential advantages to ameliorate the risk of secondary brain insult by reducing blood products' toxic effects, reducing peri-hematoma edema, and ischemia due to mass effect.[18],[19],[20],[21]

Our stereotactic aspiration technique is adapted from the MISTIE trial.[22] Unlike MISTIE, we perform the procedure under local anesthesia with sedation and do not aspirate hematoma. We believe that in intraoperative hematoma aspiration followed by passing of soft catheter along the track created by rigid cannula (MISTIE technique), the catheter may get off-target due to softness and at times give the impression of mal-position on subsequent CT. We use an EVD catheter with a stylet instead of a rigid cannula, which gives us an advantage of leaving the catheter in situ in one attempt. To achieve the best engagement in hematoma in the anterior–posterior axis, we prefer to perform burr hole as frontal as possible, at times even slightly anterior to the hairline. In this scenario, we use a transverse incision along Langer's line. Our catheter tip targets the posterior-most point of hematoma, as in the postoperative period, the patient lies supine, and liquefied hematoma keeps on falling into the cavity due to gravity. As we do not aspirate hematoma, our technique is more of a “Stereotactic Drainage” rather than a “Stereotactic Aspiration.” Representative images of select cases are showcased in [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Representative images of two cases of stereotactic hematoma aspiration. Figures (3a, 3b, and 3c) show preoperative, at 3 days, and follow-up CT scan, respectively, in a case of right-side capsule-ganglionic hematoma. Figures (3d, 3e, and 3f) depict a similar set of images in a left-side hematoma. (Original)

Click here to view


In contrast to other studies, we set the inclusion criteria to keep the uniformity of the ICH score of 2, thereby eliminating the potential confounding factors for the outcome. We compared outcomes between the sides of hematoma [Table 4]. We also evaluated care parameters like ventilator days, ICU stays, and hospital stays, which were significantly shorter in the stereotactic aspiration group. The likely reason is that a set of patients in GCS >8 in the stereotactic aspiration group never required intubation and general anesthesia, as the procedure can be safely performed under local anesthesia and sedation. It reduces the overall cost of treatment, as also shown by Hattori et al.[23] in their randomized study.
Table 4: Summary of studies comparing craniotomy and stereotactic aspiration of hematoma

Click here to view


The superiority and efficacy of stereotactic aspiration over conventional craniotomy had been proved in the various meta-analyses.[30],[31],[32] This technique has even been used effectively in cerebellar hemorrhage.[33] Although craniotomy reduces ICP immediately at the cost of cortical damage, stereotactic aspiration does it slowly over a period. In hematomas having liquefied clots, even a considerable amount of blood gets drained out in the first 24 hours. Another advantage is that the catheter also drains a fair amount of CSF from sulcal spaces (evident as increased drain output), further reducing the ICP. If required, the catheter itself can be used to monitor ICP.[34]

Like in some studies, we did not find any significant difference in the chance of re-bleed between both methods.[25],[26],[29] On the contrary, an increased risk of re-bleed was seen after craniotomy in other studies.[24],[28] While open surgery has a chance to achieve hemostasis immediately, we prefer to stay conservative for maximum possible safe removal towards the insular side to avoid inadvertent bleeding encounters with lenticulostriate branches. We believe that the aim of surgery should be to reduce ICP rather than having a clean scan. In the stereotactic aspiration technique, a gradual reduction in hematoma volume occurs, therefore maintaining the tamponade-induced hemostasis. For similar reasons, we avoid aspiration and prefer gravity drainage.

As open surgery for deep-seated hematoma incorporates traversing through undamaged white matter fibers, the trends of minimally invasive surgeries are on the rise. Cho et al.[35] compared endoscopic, stereotactic, and craniotomy methods for hematoma removal and concluded that both endoscopic and stereotactic methods are equivalent in performance and better than craniotomy. In contrast, recently, in 2019, a meta-analysis of RCT comparing endoscopic surgery and craniotomy showed lower complication rates with endoscopy, but no superior advantage in morbidity rates.[36] Katsuki et al.[37] in 2020 reported similar observations. Compared to endoscopic procedures, stereotactic aspiration is even less invasive, and their safety and outcome have been proven in MISTIE trials. Initial results were encouraging but failed to show functional improvement in 1 year over medical management.[14],[22] In MISTIE-III, 44.17% of stereotactic aspiration patients achieved a good outcome (MRS 0-3) in comparison to 60.24% in our study. At 1 year, the case-fatality rate in MISTIE-III was 19%, whereas it was 16.86% at a mean follow-up of 25.59 months in our stereotactic cohort. These differences can be explained as the MISTIE cohort included basal ganglia along with lobar hematomas, patients of all GCS, with IVH, and on anticoagulant/anti-platelet drugs.[22] Patients after stereotactic aspiration also get benefits in terms of improved activities of daily living.[38]

MRS or extended Glasgow outcome score is mostly used for outcome assessment, which basically evaluates the patient's functional independence. As most capsulo-ganglionic bleeds induce primary and secondary white matter injury to the eloquent brain,[39] no modality is likely to restore neurological status to pre-event level, and some residual deficit with impaired functional independence is expected. Moreover, aphasia in the left side hematoma is a major influential factor for MRS. These patients land up mostly in MRS grade 3 or more; therefore, judging treatment outcomes by these scoring scales is harsh. An inter-observer variation is another inherent limitation in the evaluation of MRS.[40] Researchers are in a constant endeavor to develop better scales.[41]

The follow-up in the present study is longer than in other published studies. It was significantly shorter in the stereotactic aspiration group as this procedure was adopted in the latter half of the study period, and more patients in the latter half were subjected to stereotactic aspiration than craniotomy. With longer follow-up in the stereotactic aspiration group equivalent to the craniotomy group, the outcomes of stereotactic aspiration have the potential chance to improve further.


 » Conclusions Top


The results of our study suggest that the invasiveness of the procedure affects the outcomes. Stereotactic hematoma aspiration plus thrombolysis is a safe and effective technique for hematoma evacuation. Its surgical performance is equivalent to conventional craniotomy and has the edge in terms of fewer ventilator days, ICU stays, and hospital stays, reducing the overall cost of treatment. The neurological outcomes after stereotactic aspirations are superior to craniotomy.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to Dr. Shahwar Alam, Dr. Vikrant Tamrakar, Dr. Rahul Kulkarni, Mr. Hemlal Sahu, and Ms. Rosy Kaur for data collection and conducting follow-up of patients.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Hypertension. World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension. [Last accessed on 2021 Aug 25].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gupta R, Gaur K, Ram CV. Emerging trends in hypertension epidemiology in India. J Hum Hypertens 2019;33:575–87.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Anchala R, Kannuri NK, Pant H, Khan H, Franco OH, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Hypertension in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension. J Hypertens 2014;32:1170-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ramakrishanan S, Gupta K. Prevalence of hypertension among Indian adults: Results from the great India blood pressure survey. Indian Heart J 2020;72:217.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kamalakannan S, Gudlavalleti AS, Gudlavalleti VS, Goenka S, Kuper H. Incidence & prevalence of stroke in India: A systematic review. Indian J Med Res 2017;146:175-85.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Krishnamurthi RV, Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Mensah GA, Connor M, Bennett DA, et al. Global and regional burden of first-ever ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke during 1990-2010: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet Glob Health 2013;1:e259-81.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mendelow AD, Gregson BA, Rowan EN, Murray GD, Gholkar A, Mitchell PM. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas (STICH II): A randomised trial. Lancet 2013;382:397-408.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Flaherty ML, Beck J. Surgery for intracerebral hemorrhage: Moving forward or making circles? Stroke 2013;44:2953-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Gregson BA, Mitchell P, Mendelow AD. Surgical decision making in brain hemorrhage. Stroke 2019;50:1108-15.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Scaggiante J, Zhang X, Mocco J, Kellner CP. Minimally invasive surgery for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2018;49:2612-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sondag L, Schreuder FH, Boogaarts HD, Rovers MM, Vandertop WP, Dammers R, et al. Neurosurgical intervention for supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage. Ann Neurol 2020;88:239-250.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hemphill JC, Bonovich DC, Besmertis L, Manley GT, Johnston SC. The ICH score: A simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2001;32:891-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Broderick JP, Adeoye O, Elm J. Evolution of the modified Rankin scale and its use in future stroke trials. Stroke 2017;48:2007-12.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hanley DF, Thompson RE, Muschelli J, Rosenblum M, McBee N, Lane K, et al. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 2016;15:1228-37.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hawthorne C, Piper I. Monitoring of intracranial pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury. Front Neurol 2014;5:121.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Marmarou A, Beaumount A. Physiology of cerebrospinal fluid and intracranial pressure. In: Winn HR, editor. Youmans Neurological Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2011. p. 168-82.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Menon G. Surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: Emerging trends. Arch Med Health Sci 2017;5:65-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
  [Full text]  
18.
Mould WA, Carhuapoma R, Muschelli J, Lane K, Morgan TC, McBee NA, et al. Minimally invasive surgery plus recombinant tissue type plasminogen activator for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation decreases perihematomal edema. Stroke 2013;44:627-34.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sun C, Liao W, Jiang W, Gao P, Pan W. The pathophysiological mechanism and treatment of secondary brain insult of hypertensive intracerbral hemorrhage. Integr Med Int 2017;4:107-14.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Silvestrini M. Managing blood pressure in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2019;21:1332-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
de Oliveira Manoel AL. Surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Crit Care 2020;24:45.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Hanley DF, Thompson RE, Rosenblum M, Yenokyan G, Lane K, McBee N, et al. Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE III): A randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019;393:1021-32.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Hattori N, Katayama Y, Maya Y, Gatherer A. Impact of stereotactic hematoma evacuation on medical costs during the chronic period in patients with spontaneous putaminal hemorrhage: A randomized study. Surg Neurol 2006;65:429-35.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Sun H, Liu H, Li D, Liu L, Yang J, Wang W. An effective treatment for cerebral hemorrhage: Minimally invasive craniopuncture combined with urokinase infusion therapy. Neurol Res 2010;32:371-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Zhou H, Zhang Y, Liu L, Huang Y, Tang Y, Su J, et al. Minimally invasive stereotactic puncture and thrombolysis therapy improves long-term outcome after acute intracerebral hemorrhage. J Neurol 2011;258:661-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Wang GQ, Li SQ, Huang YH, Zhang WW, Ruan WW, Qin JZ, et al. Can minimally invasive puncture and drainage for hypertensive spontaneous Basal Ganglia intracerebral hemorrhage improve patient outcome: A prospective non-randomized comparative study. Mil Med Res 2014;1:10.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Yang G, Shao G. Clinical effect of minimally invasive intracranial hematoma in treating hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage. Pak J Med Sci 2016;32:677-81.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Wang W, Zhou N, Wang C. Minimally invasive surgery for patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage with large hematoma volume: A retrospective study. World Neurosurg 2017;105:348-58.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Park JW, Yang GY, Jung G, Kim YZ. Overall Clinical outcome of stereotactic guided burrhole-drainage versus craniotomy with removal of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Am J Biomed Sci Res 2020:8;539-44.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Zhou X, Chen J, Li Q, Ren G, Yao G, Liu M, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke 2012;43:2923-30.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Ramanan M, Shankar A. Minimally invasive surgery for primary supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:1650-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Tang Y, Yin F, Fu D, Gao X, Lv Z, Li X. Efficacy and safety of minimal invasive surgery treatment in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol 2018;18:136.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Lee JH, Kim DW, Kang SD. Stereotactic burr hole aspiration surgery for spontaneous hypertensive cerebellar hemorrhage. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg 2012;14:170-4.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Yu SX, Zhang QS, Yin Y, Liu Z, Wu JM, Yang MX. Continuous monitoring of intracranial pressure for prediction of postoperative complications of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016;20:4750-5.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Cho DY, Chen CC, Chang CS, Lee WY, Tso M. Endoscopic surgery for spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage: Comparing endoscopic surgery, stereotactic aspiration, and craniotomy in noncomatose patients. Surg Neurol 2006;65:547-55; discussion 555-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Zhao XH, Zhang SZ, Feng J, Li ZZ, Ma ZL. Efficacy of neuroendoscopic surgery versus craniotomy for supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Brain Behav 2019;9:e01471.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Katsuki M, Kakizawa Y, Nishikawa A, Yamamoto Y, Uchiyama T. Endoscopic hematoma removal of supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage under local anesthesia reduces operative time compared to craniotomy. Sci Rep 2020;10:10389.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Hattori N, Katayama Y, Maya Y, Gatherer A. Impact of stereotactic hematoma evacuation on activities of daily living during the chronic period following spontaneous putaminal hemorrhage: A randomized study. J Neurosurg 2004;101:417-20.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Zuo S, Pan P, Li Q, Chen Y, Feng H. White matter injury and recovery after hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Biomed Res Int 2017:6138424. doi: 10.1155/2017/6138424.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin scale: A systematic review. Stroke 2009;40:3393-5.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Goyal M, Ganesh A, Brown S, Menon BK, Hill MD. Suggested modification of presentation of stroke trial results. Int J Stroke 2018;13:669-72.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow