Comparison of Two Drainage Systems on Chronic Subdural Hematoma Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a common type of intracranial hemorrhage, especially among the elderly, with a recurrence rate as high as 33%. Little is known about the best type of drainage system and its relationship with recurrence. In this study, we compare the use of two drainage systems on the recurrence rate of CSDH. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 172 CSDH patients treated with bedside twist drill craniostomy (TDC) and subdural drain insertion. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 123) received a pediatric size nasogastric tube [NGT]), whereas group B (n = 49) had a drain commonly used for external ventricular drainage (EVD). Various demographic and radiologic data were collected. Our main outcome was recurrence, defined as symptomatic re-accumulation of hematoma on the previously operated side within 3 months. Results In all, 212 cases of CSDH were treated in 172 patients. The majority of patients were male (78%) and had a history of previous head trauma (73%). Seventeen cases had recurrence, 11 in group A and 6 in group B. The use of antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents was associated with recurrence (p = 0.038 and 0.05, respectively). There was no difference between both groups in terms of recurrence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49–4.08; p = 0.573). Conclusion CSDH is a common disease with a high rate of recurrence. Although using a drain postoperatively has shown to reduce the incidence of recurrence, little is known about the best type of drain to use. Our analysis showed no difference in the recurrence rate between using the pediatric size NGT and the EVD catheter post-TDC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".