A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Passive or active drainage system for chronic subdural haematoma-a single-center retrospective follow-up study. | LitMetric

Background: Postoperative drainage systems have become a standard treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). We previously compared treatment results from three Scandinavian centers using three different postoperative drainage systems and concluded that the active subgaleal drainage was associated with lower recurrence and complication rates than the passive subdural drainage. We consequently changed clinical practice from using the passive subdural drainage to the active subgaleal drainage.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess a potential change in reoperation rates for CSDH after conversion to the active subgaleal drainage.

Methods: This single-center cohort study compared the reoperation rates for recurrent same-sided CSDH and postoperative complication rates between patients treated during two study periods (passive subdural drainage cohort versus active subgaleal drainage cohort).

Results: In total, 594 patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in reoperation rates between the passive subdural drain group and the active subgaleal drain group (21.6%, 95% CI 17.5-26.4% vs. 18.0%, 95% CI 13.8-23.2%; p = 0.275). There was no statistical difference in the rate of serious complications between the groups. The operating time was significantly shorter for patients operated with the active subgaleal drain than patients with the passive subdural drain (32.8 min, 95% CI 31.2-34.5 min vs. 47.6 min, 95% CI 44.7-50.4 min; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Conversion from the passive subdural to the active subgaleal drainage did not result in a clear reduction of reoperation rates for CSDH in our center.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10876710PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-024-05967-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

active subgaleal
24
passive subdural
20
subdural drainage
12
reoperation rates
12
drainage
8
chronic subdural
8
postoperative drainage
8
drainage systems
8
subgaleal drainage
8
complication rates
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!