Active Versus Passive Drainage Systems for Subdural Hematomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) management involves various surgical techniques, with drainage systems playing a pivotal role. While passive drainage (PD) and active drainage (AD) are both used, their efficacy remains contentious. Some studies favor PD for lower recurrence rates, while others suggest AD superiority. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to address this controversy, aiming to provide clarity on optimal drainage modalities post-CSDH evacuation. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing active vs PD for subdural hematomas. Data extraction involved independent researchers, and statistical analysis was conducted using R software. The assessment of risk of bias was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions framework and the Risk Of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, involving 1949 patients with AD and 1346 with PD, no significant differences were observed in recurrence rates between the active (13.6%) and passive (16.4%) drainage groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.58-1.31). Similarly, for complications, infection, hemorrhage, and mortality, no significant disparities were found between the 2 drainage modalities. Complication rates were 7.5% for active and 12.6% for PD (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.36-1.52). Infection rates were available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 2% and 2.6%, respectively (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.24-4.01). Hemorrhage rates were also available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.11-1.81). Mortality rates were 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study found no significant difference between passive and AD for managing complications, recurrence, infection, hemorrhage, or mortality in CSDH cases. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed for clarity.

Endoscopic surgery for craniosynostosis: A systematic review and single-arm meta analysis.

BACKGROUND: Craniosynostosis, a developmental craniofacial anomaly, can impair brain development and cause abnormal skull shape due to premature closure of one or more cranial sutures. Traditional surgical treatments have evolved from open operations to minimally invasive endoscopic techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the endoscopic approach in craniosynostosis correction. METHODS: Adhering to Cochrane Group standards and the PRISMA framework, this review utilized databases like PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, focusing on clinical and surgical outcomes of endoscopic craniosynostosis operations up to December 2023. Inclusion criteria emphasized studies with at least five patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, while exclusion criteria involved non-English papers, incomplete texts, and overlapping data. Statistical analysis used R software with various packages, and methodological bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I framework. RESULTS: The review included 30 studies (4 prospective, 26 retrospective) with 2561 patients. The median age at operation was 3.20 months. Findings showed a mean operative time of 68.06 min, median hospital stay of 1.28 days, and mean blood loss of 29.89 ml. Blood transfusion was required in 9.97% of cases. Helmet therapy post-operation was common, with a median duration of 9 months. The rate of postoperative complications was 1.86%, and the reoperation rate was 3.07%. No procedure-related mortality was observed. The study noted substantial variations in the handling of craniosynostosis and a lack of consensus on the optimal timing and surgical approach. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic techniques for craniosynostosis repair demonstrate safety and effectiveness, characterized by low complication risks and favorable surgical outcomes. However, due to the limitations of observational studies and inherent heterogeneity, further comprehensive and controlled trials are needed to validate these findings and understand the long-term outcomes of the endoscopic approach.

Brain tissue oxygen plus intracranial pressure monitoring versus isolated intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injury: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring plays a key role in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), however, cerebral hypoxia can occur without intracranial hypertension. Aiming to improve neuroprotection in these patients, a possible alternative is the association of Brain Tissue Oxygen Pressure (PbtO2) monitoring, used to detect PbtO2 tension. METHOD: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central for RCTs comparing combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring with ICP monitoring alone in patients with severe or moderate TBI. The outcomes analyzed were mortality at 6 months, favorable outcome (GOS ≥ 4 or GOSE ≥ 5) at 6 months, pulmonary events, cardiovascular events and sepsis rate. RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs in the analysis, totaling 505 patients. Combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring was used in 241 (47.72%) patients. There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to favorable outcome at 6 months (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.95-1.43; p = 0.134; I2 = 0%), mortality at 6 months (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.57-1.18; p = 0.281; I2 = 34%), cardiovascular events (RR 1.75; 95% CI 0.86-3.52; p = 0.120; I2 = 0%) or sepsis (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.25-2.22; p = 0.604; I2 = 0%). The risk of pulmonary events was significantly higher in the group with combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.11-1.87; p = 0.006; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring does not change outcomes such as mortality, functional recovery, cardiovascular events or sepsis. Furthermore, we found a higher risk of pulmonary events in patients undergoing combined monitoring.

Simultaneous Single-Trajectory Endoscopic Biopsy and Third Ventriculostomy in Pineal Region Tumors: A Systematic Review and Single Arm Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and surgical outcomes of the simultaneous single-trajectory endoscopic biopsy and third ventriculostomy (ETV) in pineal region tumors. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis adhering to Cochrane Standards and PRISMA framework were conducted. PubMed, Embase, and Web Of Science databases were searched until December 2023. Outcomes included rate of histopathologic diagnosis success, ETV success, complications, required VPS, and mortality. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (N = 388) met inclusion criteria. Histopathologic diagnosis success rate was 90% for general population (95% CI: 86%-95%; I2 = 42%) and 94% for pediatric patients (95% CI: 89%-98%; I2 = 19%). ETV Success rate was 93% (95% CI: 88%-97%; I2 = 60%). An estimated risk of postoperative ETV complications was found to be 16% for the general population (95% CI: 5%-28%; I2 = 90%) and 5% for pediatric patients (95% CI: 0%-13%; I2 = 51%). The risk of requiring VPS was estimated as 2% (95% CI: 0%-4%; I2 = 39%) and for the pediatric population it was 7% (95% CI: 0%-16%; I2 = 69%). Mortality risk was found to be 1% (95% CI: 0%-3%; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous endoscopic biopsy and ETV demonstrated high diagnostic and therapeutic success rates. The procedure's safety profile, with low mortality and complications, supports its role in treating hydrocephalus associated to pineal region tumors. Subgroup analyses revealed higher diagnostic success rates and required VPS in the pediatric population, whilst it had lower complication rates.

EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES IN INTERVENTION RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS - DISTAL RADIUS FRACTURES.

Objectives: Describe the frequency and types of outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of intervention for distal radius fractures, analyze how confusing outcome presentations can lead to misinterpretations, and suggest strategies to improve the reader's understanding of the decision-making process. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted through a systematized search on the PubMed® database in the last 10 years, in which only intervention RCT was included for distal radius fractures, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of the primary outcomes analyzed in the 75 selected articles, 46.6% were classified as clinical outcomes, 20% as surrogate, 30.6% as composite, 1.3% as complex scales, and 1.3% as safety outcomes. 34.7% of the articles did not report adverse events. Conclusion: The presentation of outcomes with little clinical relevance represented more than half of the sample (53.4%) - such studies can harm the reader since they confuse the interpretation of scientific evidence; the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative could help health professionals in understanding and selecting the most appropriate therapeutic interventions for patients. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study .

Objetivos: Descrever a frequência e os tipos de desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados (RCT) de intervenção para fraturas distais do rádio, analisar como apresentações confusas de desfechos podem levar a interpretações equivocadas e sugerir estratégias para melhorar a compreensão do leitor sobre o processo de tomada de decisão. Métodos: Foi realizado estudo retrospectivo mediante busca sistematizada na base de dados PubMed® nos últimos 10 anos, na qual foram incluídos apenas RCT de intervenção para fraturas do segmento distal do rádio, cujos desfechos foram analisados. Resultados: Dos desfechos primários analisados nos 75 artigos selecionados, 46,6% foram classificados como desfechos clínicos, 20% como substitutos, 30,6% como compostos, 1,3% como escalas complexas e em 1,3% como desfechos de segurança. 34,7% dos artigos não reportaram eventos adversos. Conclusão: A apresentação de desfechos com pouca relevância clínica representou mais da metade da amostra (53,4%) - tais estudos podem prejudicar o leitor, uma vez que confundem a interpretação das evidências científicas; a iniciativa Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) auxilia os profissionais de saúde na compreensão e seleção das intervenções terapêuticas mais adequadas para os pacientes. Nível de Evidência III; Estudo retrospectivo comparativo .

Evaluation of outcomes in intervention randomized clinical trials - distal radius fractures / Avaliação dos desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados de intervenção - fraturas distais do rádio

ABSTRACT Objectives: Describe the frequency and types of outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of intervention for distal radius fractures, analyze how confusing outcome presentations can lead to misinterpretations, and suggest strategies to improve the reader's understanding of the decision-making process. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted through a systematized search on the PubMed® database in the last 10 years, in which only intervention RCT was included for distal radius fractures, and outcomes were analyzed. Results: Of the primary outcomes analyzed in the 75 selected articles, 46.6% were classified as clinical outcomes, 20% as surrogate, 30.6% as composite, 1.3% as complex scales, and 1.3% as safety outcomes. 34.7% of the articles did not report adverse events. Conclusion: The presentation of outcomes with little clinical relevance represented more than half of the sample (53.4%) - such studies can harm the reader since they confuse the interpretation of scientific evidence; the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative could help health professionals in understanding and selecting the most appropriate therapeutic interventions for patients. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study .

RESUMO Objetivos: Descrever a frequência e os tipos de desfechos em ensaios clínicos randomizados (RCT) de intervenção para fraturas distais do rádio, analisar como apresentações confusas de desfechos podem levar a interpretações equivocadas e sugerir estratégias para melhorar a compreensão do leitor sobre o processo de tomada de decisão. Métodos: Foi realizado estudo retrospectivo mediante busca sistematizada na base de dados PubMed® nos últimos 10 anos, na qual foram incluídos apenas RCT de intervenção para fraturas do segmento distal do rádio, cujos desfechos foram analisados. Resultados: Dos desfechos primários analisados nos 75 artigos selecionados, 46,6% foram classificados como desfechos clínicos, 20% como substitutos, 30,6% como compostos, 1,3% como escalas complexas e em 1,3% como desfechos de segurança. 34,7% dos artigos não reportaram eventos adversos. Conclusão: A apresentação de desfechos com pouca relevância clínica representou mais da metade da amostra (53,4%) - tais estudos podem prejudicar o leitor, uma vez que confundem a interpretação das evidências científicas; a iniciativa Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) auxilia os profissionais de saúde na compreensão e seleção das intervenções terapêuticas mais adequadas para os pacientes. Nível de Evidência III; Estudo retrospectivo comparativo .