Neuroendoscopic Surgery versus Stereotactic Aspiration in the treatment of supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: a meta-analysis

Shuwen Sun; Xin Huang; Xiaobin Fei; Kai Gong; Fuhua Ye; Heng Gao

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.04.132

Neuroendoscopic Surgery versus Stereotactic Aspiration in the treatment of supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: a meta-analysis

World Neurosurg. 2024 Apr 26:S1878-8750(24)00705-8. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.04.132. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Shuwen Sun¹, Xin Huang², Xiaobin Fei², Kai Gong², Fuhua Ye², Heng Gao²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Jiangyin hospital of Nantong University, 214400, Jiangyin, China. Electronic address: sunshuwen0810@sina.com.
² Department of Neurosurgery, The Affiliated Jiangyin hospital of Nantong University, 214400, Jiangyin, China.

PMID: 38679374
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.04.132

Abstract

Background: Debate persists over the relative merits of Neuroendoscopic Surgery (NS) compared to Stereotactic Aspiration (SA) for treating supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Consequently, we undertook this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of NS versus SA.

Methods: We searched for the all-relevant studies systematically from English databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Three independent researchers identified and selected these literatures that met the inclusion criteria. Then we evaluated the quality of these studies according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to conduct this meta-analysis.

Results: Sixteen studies, including 2722 supratentorial ICH patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that NS could effectively improve the functional prognosis (P = 0.002), reduce the postoperative mortality (P < 0.00001) and increase the hematoma evacuation rate (P < 0.00001). In addition, SA had more advantages in shortening operation time (P < 0.00001) and reducing intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.0001). However, there was no obvious statistical difference in ICU stays (P = 0.23) between NS and SA. Besides, no sufficient evidence could support a significant difference in hospital stays. In the aspect of complications, NS was discovered to have a positive effect on preventing rebleeding (P = 0.005) and intracranial infection (P = 0.003). However, no significant differences between the two groups in digestive tract ulcer (P = 0.34), epilepsy (P = 0.99), and pneumonia (P = 0.58). In the subgroup analysis, factors including publication time, GCS score, age, and follow-up all significantly influenced the GFO and mortality. Meanwhile, NS behaved more advantageous in improving functional prognosis for patients with hematoma located in the basal ganglia.

Conclusion: NS may hold more advantages over SA in the treatment of supratentorial ICH. However, SA is also an effective and suitable alternative for elderly patients, especially those with multiple comorbidities intolerant to extended surgical procedures. Further high-quality studies are warranted to substantiate our findings in the future.

Keywords: ICH; Neuroendoscopic Surgery; Stereotactic Aspiration; meta-analysis.