A Retrospective Cohort Study of Neuroendoscopic Surgery versus Traditional Craniotomy on Surgical Success Rate, Postoperative Complications, and Prognosis in Patients with Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. A case-control study was adopted to explore the effect of neuroendoscopy compared with traditional craniotomy on the success rate, postoperative complications, and prognosis of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods. The clinical data of 106 patients with ICH treated in our hospital from March 2019 to June 2021 were collected and analyzed retrospectively and divided into two groups according to different treatment methods. The patients who were cured by craniotomy were in the control group (n = 53), and those who received neuroendoscopic surgery were in the research group (n = 53).The clinical efficacy of patients was compared, and the cognition and daily living ability were evaluated by the Trier cognitive assessment scale, limb motor function score, and activity of daily living scale. The National Institutes of Health Stroke scale (NIHSS) and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were used to compare the neurological function of the two groups before and after treatment, and the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and disability rating scale (DRS) were adopted to evaluate the functional prognosis. The simplified Fugl-Meyer motor function score was adopted to evaluate the patient’s limb function, the Montreal cognitive assessment scale was adopted to evaluate the patient’s cognitive function, the Barthel index score was adopted to evaluate the daily living ability of patients, and the treatment of patients was recorded. Results. In comparison with groups, the effective rate of treatment in the research group was higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Regarding the surgical indicators, the hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative residual blood flow, and total hospital stay in the research group were remarkably lower, the hematoma clearance rate in the research group was remarkably higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant( P < 0.05 ). After operation, the KPS scores indicated a gradual upward trend, and those of the research group were higher at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after operation. The Barthel index scores were compared. After treatment, the Barthel index scores increased. In comparison with the two groups, the Barthel index scores of the research group were higher at 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after surgery, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). The NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores were compared. After treatment, the NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores were decreased. In comparison with the two groups, the NIHSS, GCS, and DRS scores of the research group were remarkably lower, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). With regard to the cognitive and physical function recovery after treatment, the MoCA score and Fugl-Meyer score of the research group were remarkably higher, and the difference between groups was statistically significant( P < 0.05 ). The quality of life scores was compared. After treatment, the quality of life scores decreased. In comparison with the two groups, the scores of physiological function, psychological function, social function, and healthy self-awareness of the research group were lower, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). The incidence of postoperative complications in the research group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference between groups was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Compared with conventional craniotomy, neuroendoscopic surgery can remarkably reduce the operation time and blood loss, enhance the hematoma clearance rate, and have a better prognosis, which is more conducive to the recovery of postoperative neurological function, life activities, and quality of life of patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".