TechniqueEndoscopic surgery for spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage: comparing endoscopic surgery, stereotactic aspiration, and craniotomy in noncomatose patients
Introduction
The role of surgery in the treatment of spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage remains a matter of debate [18]. Conventional craniotomy has a mortality rate of 25% at 3 months, and 58.9% of patients who undergo the procedure have poor outcomes [28]. Alternative procedures include endoscopic surgery and stereotactic aspiration [19]. The initial inherent drawback of endoscopic procedures is limited visualization of the surgical field when removing small hematomas [29], which ultrasound [1], [2], [3], [4] or stereotactic guidance [9], [17] can improve. Nishihara et al [33] used acrylic plastic sheaths to create surgical tunnels and improve the working space, which proved to be efficient for hematoma removal. They concluded that endoscopic surgery is not a technical limitation when evacuating large-volume hematomas. Stereotactic aspiration to treat deep-seated basal ganglia hematomas has gained wide acceptance [9], [11], [12], [14], [16], [25], [26], [30], [41], [42]. Nevertheless, debate continues regarding how to aspirate a sufficient proportion of the hematoma to obtain mass effect relief [10], [12], [21], [22], [24], [25] and what is the appropriate waiting timing before surgery [15], [27].
In normal situations, clinicians must observe a waiting period after diagnosis before performing stereotactic aspiration to prevent rebleeding [32]. Radical stereotactic aspiration provides good neurological outcomes. After reviewing the literature [14], [16], [35], [36], we found that most patients with spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage were demographically heterogeneous with respect to age, GCS, treatment preference (type of surgery vs conservative treatment), initial time of operation, and size of hematoma. Deeply comatose patients will undoubtedly have poorer outcomes because of severe and irreversible brain damage, regardless of treatment modality. Strict candidate selection is mandatory to evaluate the safety, neurological outcome, and cost-effectiveness of spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage treatments; therefore, we designed this prospective randomized study.
Section snippets
Patient selection
From January 1999 to June 2003, we enrolled 90 consecutive noncomatose patients (GCS, 9-13) with spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage in this study. During this time, 485 patients with spontaneous ICH were found in our hospital. Patients in this study had a mean age of 55.82 ± 9.57 years (range, 35-70 years). We excluded patients younger than 35 and older than 70 years. We randomly divided patients into 3 groups: group A (n = 30) underwent endoscopic surgery for hematoma removal; group B (n =
Results
The mean waiting time for surgery was 67.10 ± 46.17 minutes in group A, 172.56 ± 93.18 minutes in group B, and 66.78 ± 44.26 minutes in group C (P < .001). Waiting time resulted in significant delays for the stereotactic groups (P < .001). Operative time was longest in the craniotomy group (229.96 ± 50.57 minutes), followed by the endoscopic group (158.08 ± 47.42 minutes), and the stereotactic group (117.38 ± 23.27 minutes; P < .001). The amount of blood loss was largest in the craniotomy group
Study backgrounds
We chose patients with GCS between 9 and 13 to evaluate the 3 types of surgery in this study. Operations performed on patients with GCS less than or equal to 8 may be lifesaving but might not improve functional outcomes or be cost-effective [4], [8], [37]. Operations performed on patients with GCS greater than or equal to 14 usually have satisfactory outcomes, but medical treatment can result in similar outcomes [8], [37]. Therefore, patients more than or less than the range 9 to 13 of the GCS
Conclusions
Both endoscopic surgery and stereotactic aspiration are effective minimally invasive procedures with low complication and mortality rates; however, the waiting time is longer when performing stereotactic aspiration. Endoscopic surgery shows good functional neurological outcomes, is more cost-effective, and aids in rapid and effective hematoma evacuation. Clinicians may perform craniotomy for the emergency decompression of enlarged hematomas when endoscopic surgery or stereotactic aspiration is
References (44)
- et al.
Stereotactic aspiration of intracerebral hematoma: significance of surgical timing and hematoma volume reduction
J Clin Neurosci
(2003) - et al.
Multiple target aspiration technique for subacute stereotactic aspiration of hematomas within the basal ganglia
Surg Neurol
(2003) - et al.
Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hematomas in the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (STICH): a randomized trial
Lancet
(2005) Endoscopic evacuation of intracerebral hemorrhage: high-tech–surgical treatment—a new approach to the problem?
Acta Neurochir (Wien)
(1985)- et al.
Does acute endoscopic evacuation improve the outcome of patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage?
Eur Neurol
(1985) - et al.
Endoscopic neurosurgery
Acta Neurochir (Wien)
(1988) - et al.
Endoscopic surgery versus medical treatment for spontaneous intracerebral hematoma: a randomized study
J Neurosurg
(1989) - et al.
Refining the conceptual basis of rehabilitation outcome measures: personal care and instrumental activities domain
Med Care
(2004) - et al.
Extravasation of contrast medium in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
Neuron
(1976) - et al.
Endoscope-assisted brain surgery: part 2—analysis of 380 procedures
Neurosurgery
(1998)