0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Acute subdural haematoma in the elderly: to operate or not to operate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following surgery

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Acute subdural haematoma (ASDH) is a devastating pathology commonly found on CT brain scans of patients with traumatic brain injury. The role of surgical intervention in the elderly has been increasingly questioned due to its associated morbidity and mortality. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to quantify the mortality and functional outcomes associated with surgical management of ASDH in the elderly was performed.

          Design/setting

          A multidatabase literature search between January 1990 and May 2020, and meta-analysis of proportions was performed to quantify mortality and unfavourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome scale 1–3; death/ severe disability) rates.

          Participants

          Studies reporting patients aged 60 years or older.

          Interventions

          Craniotomy, decompressive craniectomy, conservative management.

          Outcome measures

          Mortality and functional outcomes (discharge, long-term follow-up (LTFU)).

          Results

          2572 articles were screened, yielding 21 studies for final inclusion and 15 for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of mortality were 39.83% (95% CI 32.73% to 47.14%; 10 studies, 308/739 patients, I 2=73%) at discharge and 49.30% (95% CI 42.01% to 56.61%; 10 studies, 277/555 patients, I 2=63%) at LTFU. Mean duration of follow-up was 7.1 months (range 2–12 months). Pooled estimate of percentage of poor outcomes was 81.18% (95% CI 75.61% to 86.21%; 6 studies, 363/451 patients, I 2=45%) at discharge, and 79.25% (95% CI 72.42% to 85.37%; 8 studies, 402/511 patients, I 2=66%) at LTFU. Mean duration of follow-up was 6.4 months (range 2–12 months). Potential risk factors for poor outcome included age, baseline functional status, preoperative neurological status and imaging parameters.

          Conclusions

          Outcomes following surgical evacuation of ASDH in patients aged 60 years and above are poor. This constitutes the best level of evidence in the current literature that surgical intervention for ASDH in the elderly carries significant risks, which must be weighed against benefits.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42020189508.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                3 December 2021
                : 11
                : 12
                : e050786
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Neurosurgery , Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust , Southampton, UK
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Neurosurgery , Queen Elizabeth University Hospital , Glasgow, UK
                [3 ]departmentSchool of Medicine , Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Neurosurgery , University Hospital of Wales , Cardiff, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Malik Zaben; zabenm@ 123456cardiff.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7446-4532
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-050786
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050786
                8647543
                34862284
                2de26f40-e125-4259-b866-6089763d64e1
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 28 February 2021
                : 06 October 2021
                Categories
                Surgery
                1506
                1737
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                neurosurgery,geriatric medicine,trauma management
                Medicine
                neurosurgery, geriatric medicine, trauma management

                Comments

                Comment on this article