Single versus double burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: A study of relevant prognostic factors conducted in Pakistan

15Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of single versus double burr-hole for drainage of chronic subdural hematoma, keeping in consideration pertinent demographic, pre and postoperative associations. Methods: A prospective cohort study carried out in Combined Military Hospital, Multan, (December 2016-August 2018), on adults with diagnosed chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH); being segregated by randomized control trial, non-probability purposive sampling into Group-A and Group-B (who underwent single and double burr-holes for CSDH-drainage respectively). Utilizing SPSS-21, data expressed as frequencies/percentages and mean± standard deviation (SD) and cross-tabulated; p-value <0.05 was taken as significant. Results: Age and GCS scores were 62±13.694 (range 38-94) and 11.00±3.350 (range 3-15) respectively, males being 40(66.7). Post-operative fatality was Nil, while 8(13.3%) and 14(23.3%) had post-operative seizures and recurrence of hematoma respectively. There was no significant association between type of burr-hole and hospital stay (p 0-884), seizures (p 0.448) or recurrence (p 0.542). Hospital stay (p<0.000) and seizures (p-0.005) were inversely proportional to GCS scores on presentation. Recurrence rates were not affected by age (p-0.175) or gender (p-0.281). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between outcomes of single and double burr-hole surgeries; the former must be preferred because of lesser iatrogenic trauma. GCS-score on presentation was validated as a negative association to anticipate post-operative outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khan, H. U., Atif, K., & Boghsani, G. T. (2019). Single versus double burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: A study of relevant prognostic factors conducted in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 35(4), 963–968. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.4.543

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free