Endoscopic-Assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective comparative study - Takeaways - MDSpire

Endoscopic-Assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective comparative study

  • By

  • Yang Mi

  • Chunhong Wang

  • Xiaohui Yao

  • Chunlei Ju

  • Kai Yang

  • Xulei Hu

  • Hao Li

  • Haiyang Su

  • Hongming Ji

  • May 12, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

  • 1

    Endoscopic-assisted evacuation significantly reduces residual hematoma rates compared to burr-hole drainage (35.00% vs. 54.78%, p = 0.0255).

  • 2

    Patients undergoing endoscopic-assisted evacuation demonstrate improved neurological outcomes with an odds ratio of 0.30 for favorable functional recovery (p = 0.0021).

  • 3

    Endoscopic-assisted evacuation is associated with longer operative times, averaging 40.12 minutes more than burr-hole drainage (p < 0.0001).

  • 4

    The cost of hospitalization is higher for endoscopic-assisted evacuation, averaging ¥9,600 more than burr-hole drainage (p < 0.0001).

  • 5

    Postoperative complications, including intracranial pneumocephalus and hematoma recurrence, do not significantly differ between the two surgical techniques.

Original Source(s)

Endoscopic-Assisted evacuation vs. burr-hole drainage for chronic subdural hematoma: a retrospective comparative study

  • by Yang Mi, Chunhong Wang, Xiaohui Yao, Chunlei Ju, Kai Yang, Xulei Hu, Hao Li, Haiyang Su, Hongming Ji

  • May 12, 2026

Related Content

Defining the target for hemifacial spasm –regarding microvascular decompression

OR Air Setbacks May Not Affect Outcomes

Findings suggest lower ventilation during idle periods may reduce energy use without worsening outcomes.

Case Report: Beyond two years: a neurosurgical review of prolonged survival and late recurrence in IDH-wildtype GBM