Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Kristin Sjåvik x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Kristin Sjåvik, Jiri Bartek Jr., Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Marte Lødemel Henriksen, Sasha Gulati, Fredrik L. Ståhl, Helena Kristiansson, Ole Solheim, Petter Förander and Asgeir Store Jakola

OBJECTIVE

Surgery for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures. The benefit of postoperative passive subdural drainage compared with no drains has been established, but other drainage techniques are common, and their effectiveness compared with passive subdural drains remains unknown.

METHODS

In Scandinavian population-based cohorts the authors conducted a consecutive, parallel cohort study to compare different drainage techniques. The techniques used were continuous irrigation and drainage (CID cohort, n = 166), passive subdural drainage (PD cohort, n = 330), and active subgaleal drainage (AD cohort, n = 764). The primary end point was recurrence in need of reoperation within 6 months of index surgery. Secondary end points were complications, perioperative mortality, and overall survival. The analyses were based on direct regional comparison (i.e., surgical strategy).

RESULTS

Recurrence in need of surgery was observed in 18 patients (10.8%) in the CID cohort, in 66 patients (20.0%) in the PD cohort, and in 85 patients (11.1%) in the AD cohort (p < 0.001). Complications were more common in the CID cohort (14.5%) compared with the PD (7.3%) and AD (8.1%) cohorts (p = 0.019). Perioperative mortality rates were similar between cohorts (p = 0.621). There were some differences in baseline and treatment characteristics possibly interfering with the above-mentioned results. However, after adjusting for differences in baseline and treatment characteristics in a regression model, the drainage techniques were still significantly associated with clinical outcome (p < 0.001 for recurrence, p = 0.017 for complications).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the AD cohort, more recurrences were observed in the PD cohort and more complications in the CID cohort, also after adjustment for differences at baseline. Although the authors cannot exclude unmeasured confounding factors when comparing centers, AD appears superior to the more common PD.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01930617 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Restricted access

Victor E. Staartjes, Morgan Broggi, Costanza Maria Zattra, Flavio Vasella, Julia Velz, Silvia Schiavolin, Carlo Serra, Jiri Bartek Jr., Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Petter Förander, Darius Kalasauskas, Mirjam Renovanz, Florian Ringel, Konstantin R. Brawanski, Johannes Kerschbaumer, Christian F. Freyschlag, Asgeir S. Jakola, Kristin Sjåvik, Ole Solheim, Bawarjan Schatlo, Alexandra Sachkova, Hans Christoph Bock, Abdelhalim Hussein, Veit Rohde, Marike L. D. Broekman, Claudine O. Nogarede, Cynthia M. C. Lemmens, Julius M. Kernbach, Georg Neuloh, Oliver Bozinov, Niklaus Krayenbühl, Johannes Sarnthein, Paolo Ferroli, Luca Regli, Martin N. Stienen and FEBNS

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making for intracranial tumor surgery requires balancing the oncological benefit against the risk for resection-related impairment. Risk estimates are commonly based on subjective experience and generalized numbers from the literature, but even experienced surgeons overestimate functional outcome after surgery. Today, there is no reliable and objective way to preoperatively predict an individual patient’s risk of experiencing any functional impairment.

METHODS

The authors developed a prediction model for functional impairment at 3 to 6 months after microsurgical resection, defined as a decrease in Karnofsky Performance Status of ≥ 10 points. Two prospective registries in Switzerland and Italy were used for development. External validation was performed in 7 cohorts from Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. Age, sex, prior surgery, tumor histology and maximum diameter, expected major brain vessel or cranial nerve manipulation, resection in eloquent areas and the posterior fossa, and surgical approach were recorded. Discrimination and calibration metrics were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the development (2437 patients, 48.2% male; mean age ± SD: 55 ± 15 years) and external validation (2427 patients, 42.4% male; mean age ± SD: 58 ± 13 years) cohorts, functional impairment rates were 21.5% and 28.5%, respectively. In the development cohort, area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) were observed. In the pooled external validation cohort, the AUC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74), confirming generalizability. Calibration plots indicated fair calibration in both cohorts. The tool has been incorporated into a web-based application available at https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/impairment/.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional impairment after intracranial tumor surgery remains extraordinarily difficult to predict, although machine learning can help quantify risk. This externally validated prediction tool can serve as the basis for case-by-case discussions and risk-to-benefit estimation of surgical treatment in the individual patient.