A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study in comparing decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy in patients with acute subdural hematoma.

There are two controversial surgery methods which are traditionally used: craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of DC versus craniotomy for surgical management in patients with acute subdural hemorrhage (SDH) following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase up to July 30, 2023, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Relevant articles were reviewed, with a focus on studies comparing decompressive craniectomy to craniotomy techniques in patients with SDH following TBI. Ten studies in 2401 patients were reviewed. A total of 1170 patients had a craniotomy, and 1231 had decompressive craniectomy. The mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.42-0.5] P-value: 0.07). The rate of revision surgery was insignificantly different between the two groups (OR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.49-0.69] P-value: 0.08). No significant difference was found between craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy regarding unilateral mydriasis (OR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.35-0.57] P-value < 0.001). However, the craniotomy group had significantly lower rates of non-pupil reactivity (OR: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.17-0.41] P-value < 0.001) and bilateral mydriasis (OR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.5-0.66] P-value: 0.04). There was also no significant difference in extracranial injury between the two groups, although the odds ratio of significant extracranial injury was lower in the craniotomy group (OR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45-0.7] P-value: 0.22). Our findings showed that non-pupil and bilateral-pupil reactivity were significantly more present in decompressive craniectomy. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding mortality rate, extracranial injury, revision surgery, and one-pupil reactivity.

A validity and reliability evaluation of fear of progression questionnaire in Iranian breast cancer patients: A methodological study.

Background and Aims: Recognizing the ability to adapt coping mechanisms in response to the unique issues present in various Iranian societies underscores the importance of considering culture and religion when interacting with diverse groups of individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the fear of progression questionnaire-short form (FoP-Q-SF) in Iranian breast cancer patients. Methods: In this methodological cross-sectional research design, 400 Iranian breast cancer patients completed the FoP-Q-SF in 2023. We assessed the characteristics, content, and both exploratory and confirmatory construct validity of the measures. To evaluate the reliability and construct validity of the FoP-Q-SF, we calculated Cronbach's α, McDonald's omega, and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Results: The average age of the patients was 49.18 (standard deviation = 16.14) years. The results of exploratory factor analysis revealed that a single-factor structure, specifically the self-efficacy scale, accounted for 65.045% of the total variance. The findings from the confirmatory factor analysis indicated a satisfactory model fit. The reliability analysis indicated that the internal consistency and stability of the measures were acceptable. Conclusion: The short Persian version of the FoP-Q-SF exhibits satisfactory validity and reliability. Thus, we recommend using this questionnaire to assess the fear of disease progression among breast cancer patients in Iran.