Cargando…

Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis

Chronic subdural hematomas (CSDH), which are frequently encountered in neurosurgical practice, are, in the majority of cases, ideally treated with surgical drainage. Despite this common practice, there is still controversy surrounding the best surgical procedure. With lack of clear evidence of a sup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Regan, Jacqueline M., Worley, Emmagene, Shelburne, Christopher, Pullarkat, Ranjit, Watson, Joseph C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115085
_version_ 1782353938343788544
author Regan, Jacqueline M.
Worley, Emmagene
Shelburne, Christopher
Pullarkat, Ranjit
Watson, Joseph C.
author_facet Regan, Jacqueline M.
Worley, Emmagene
Shelburne, Christopher
Pullarkat, Ranjit
Watson, Joseph C.
author_sort Regan, Jacqueline M.
collection PubMed
description Chronic subdural hematomas (CSDH), which are frequently encountered in neurosurgical practice, are, in the majority of cases, ideally treated with surgical drainage. Despite this common practice, there is still controversy surrounding the best surgical procedure. With lack of clear evidence of a superior technique, surgeons are free to base the decision on other factors that are not related to patient care. A retrospective chart review of 119 patients requiring surgical drainage of CSDH was conducted at a large tertiary care center over a three-year period. Of the cases reviewed, 58 patients underwent craniotomy, while 61 patients underwent burr hole washout. The study focused on re-operation rates, mortality, and morbidity, as measured by Glasgow coma scores (GCS), discharge Rankin disability scores, and discharge disposition. Secondary endpoints included length of stay and cost of procedure. Burr hole washout was superior to craniotomy with respect to patient outcome, length of stay and recurrence rates. In both study groups, patients required additional surgical procedures (6.6% of burr hole patients and 24.1% of craniotomy patients) (P = 0.0156). Of the patients treated with craniotomy, 51.7% were discharged home, whereas 65.6% of the burr hole patients were discharged home. Patients who underwent burr hole washout spent a mean of 78.8 minutes in the operating suite while the patients undergoing craniotomy spent 129.4 minutes (P < 0.001). The difference in mean cost per patient, based solely on operating time, was $2,828 (P < 0.001). This does not include the further cost due to additional procedures and hospital stay. The mean length of stay after surgical intervention was 3 days longer for the craniotomy group (P = 0.0465). Based on this retrospective study, burr hole washout is superior for both patients’ clinical and financial outcome; however, prospective long-term multicenter clinical studies are required to verify these findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4303411
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43034112015-01-30 Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis Regan, Jacqueline M. Worley, Emmagene Shelburne, Christopher Pullarkat, Ranjit Watson, Joseph C. PLoS One Research Article Chronic subdural hematomas (CSDH), which are frequently encountered in neurosurgical practice, are, in the majority of cases, ideally treated with surgical drainage. Despite this common practice, there is still controversy surrounding the best surgical procedure. With lack of clear evidence of a superior technique, surgeons are free to base the decision on other factors that are not related to patient care. A retrospective chart review of 119 patients requiring surgical drainage of CSDH was conducted at a large tertiary care center over a three-year period. Of the cases reviewed, 58 patients underwent craniotomy, while 61 patients underwent burr hole washout. The study focused on re-operation rates, mortality, and morbidity, as measured by Glasgow coma scores (GCS), discharge Rankin disability scores, and discharge disposition. Secondary endpoints included length of stay and cost of procedure. Burr hole washout was superior to craniotomy with respect to patient outcome, length of stay and recurrence rates. In both study groups, patients required additional surgical procedures (6.6% of burr hole patients and 24.1% of craniotomy patients) (P = 0.0156). Of the patients treated with craniotomy, 51.7% were discharged home, whereas 65.6% of the burr hole patients were discharged home. Patients who underwent burr hole washout spent a mean of 78.8 minutes in the operating suite while the patients undergoing craniotomy spent 129.4 minutes (P < 0.001). The difference in mean cost per patient, based solely on operating time, was $2,828 (P < 0.001). This does not include the further cost due to additional procedures and hospital stay. The mean length of stay after surgical intervention was 3 days longer for the craniotomy group (P = 0.0465). Based on this retrospective study, burr hole washout is superior for both patients’ clinical and financial outcome; however, prospective long-term multicenter clinical studies are required to verify these findings. Public Library of Science 2015-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4303411/ /pubmed/25611468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115085 Text en © 2015 Regan et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Regan, Jacqueline M.
Worley, Emmagene
Shelburne, Christopher
Pullarkat, Ranjit
Watson, Joseph C.
Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title_full Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title_fullStr Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title_short Burr Hole Washout versus Craniotomy for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: Patient Outcome and Cost Analysis
title_sort burr hole washout versus craniotomy for chronic subdural hematoma: patient outcome and cost analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115085
work_keys_str_mv AT reganjacquelinem burrholewashoutversuscraniotomyforchronicsubduralhematomapatientoutcomeandcostanalysis
AT worleyemmagene burrholewashoutversuscraniotomyforchronicsubduralhematomapatientoutcomeandcostanalysis
AT shelburnechristopher burrholewashoutversuscraniotomyforchronicsubduralhematomapatientoutcomeandcostanalysis
AT pullarkatranjit burrholewashoutversuscraniotomyforchronicsubduralhematomapatientoutcomeandcostanalysis
AT watsonjosephc burrholewashoutversuscraniotomyforchronicsubduralhematomapatientoutcomeandcostanalysis