Minimal invasive puncture and drainage versus endoscopic surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage in basal ganglia.

Abstract

Two prevalent therapies for the treatment of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in basal ganglia are, minimally invasive puncture and drainage (MIPD), and endoscopic surgery (ES). Because both surgical techniques are of a minimally invasive nature, they have attracted greater attention in recent years. However, evidence comparing the curative effect of MIPD and ES has been uncertain. The indication for MIPD or ES has been uncertain till now. In the present study, 112 patients with spontaneous ICH in basal ganglia who received MIPD or ES were reviewed retrospectively. Baseline parameters prior to the operation, evacuation rate (ER), perihematoma edema, postoperative complications, and rebleeding incidences were collected. Moreover, 1-year postictus, the long-term functional outcomes of patients with regard to hematoma volume (HV) or Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score were judged, respectively, by the case fatality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), Barthel Index (BI), and modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The ES group had a higher ER than the MIPD group on postoperative day 1. The MIPD group had fewer adverse outcomes, which included less perihematoma edema, anesthetic time, and blood loss, than the ES group. The functional outcomes represented by GOS, BI, and mRS were better in the MIPD group than in the ES group for patients with HV 30–60 mL or GCS score 9–14. These results indicate that ES is more effective in evacuating hematoma in basal ganglia, while MIPD is less invasive than ES. Patients with HV 30–60 mL or GCS score 9–14 may benefit more from the MIPD procedure than from ES.