Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive puncture and drainage versus trepanation and drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive puncture and drainage (MIPD) versus trepanation and drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database were searched for studies on the treatment of CSDH by MIPD and trepanation and drainage. By reading the title, abstract and full text, and screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the qualified articles were confirmed. Subsequently, the literature quality was evaluated based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the data of the research subjects and the primary outcome measures were extracted for meta-analysis with RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: Ten articles were included, with a total of 1000 patients. According to the meta-analysis, the 2 groups showed no statistical difference in CSDH recurrence rate (P > .05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of postoperative adverse reactions were lower and the cure rate was higher in the MIPD group compared with trepanation and drainage group (all P < .05). By drawing the funnel plot of the outcome measures with heterogeneity, it can be seen that the distribution on both sides of the funnel was basically symmetrical, suggesting a low deviation possibility of the analysis results and reliable reference significance of our findings. CONCLUSION: Compared with trepanation and drainage, MIPD has better clinical effects and higher safety in treating CSDH and can effectively reduce surgery-induced damage, which is worth popularizing in clinical practice.