Burr hole craniostomy vs. minicraniotomy of chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal: European Review For Medical And Pharmacological Sciences
Treatment Used: Burr Hole Craniostomy Vers Minicraniotomy
Number of Patients: 3580
MediFind Summary

Summary: The purpose of the review was to compare the effects between burr hole craniostomy and minicraniotomy for the surgical treatment in chronic subdural hematoma.

Conclusion: The review showed that burr hole craniostomy reduces the recurrence rate, reoperation rate, and duration of operation compared to minicraniotomy. Burr hole craniostomy is much more minimally invasive when compared to minicraniotomy.


Objective: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). However, the best surgical method is still controversial. Three different methods including burr hole craniostomy (BHC), minicraniotomy (MC), and twist drill craniostomy (TDC) are commonly utilized. Besides, large craniotomy, trephine craniotomy [TC (single or double)], small craniotomy, and endoscopic removal are befittingly used in some situations, too. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects between BHC and MC for surgical treatment in CSDH. Materials and

Methods: A literature research was conducted according to the PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for studies that directly compared BHC and MC for CSDH. The following endpoints were compared between BHC and MC: recurrence rate, reoperation rate, duration of operation, days of hospital treatment, postoperative complications, mortality, and rate of good outcome.

Results: Thirteen papers [n = 3,559 (3,580 operation sites), BHC: 1,936 operation sites, MC: 1,644 operation sites] met the inclusion criteria. The recurrence rate (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.91, p = 0.02; I2 = 66%) was lower and the reoperation rate was also significantly lower (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25-0.81, p = 0.008; I2 = 72%) in the BHC group compared with the MC group. The duration of operation (MD: -20.15 min, 95% CI: -28.99 to -11.31, p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) was significantly shorter in the BHC group compared with the MC group. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in mortality (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.92-1.61, p = 0.16; I2 = 38%), postoperative complications (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.033-1.37, p = 0.28; I2 = 82%), days of hospital treatment (MD: 1.59, 95% CI: -10.44 to 13.62, p = 0.14; I2 = 85%) and rate of good outcome (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.94-2.08, p = 0.10; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the included literature showed that BHC reduces the recurrence rate, reoperation rate and duration of operation compared to MC. BHC is much more minimal invasive when compared to MC. More invasions may signify more post-operative complications, which may cause the increasing rate of recurrence and reoperation. No significant difference in mortality, post-operative complications, days of hospital treatment and rate of good outcome was observed between the two groups.

Y-w Huang, X-s Yin, Z-p Li

Similar Latest Advances