Scholarlink

<p>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of external ventricular drainage (EVD) in managing patients with space-occupying cerebellar infarction.&#xa0;The 48 patients were divided into two groups: the EVD group and the non-EVD group. The outcomes of the patient were assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), with scores of ≤ 3 indicating a favorable prognosis.&#xa0;Among the 48 patients, 29 underwent EVD, while 19 were in the non-EVD group. This non-EVD group included 14 patients who underwent suboccipital decompression and 5 who underwent suboccipital decompression combined with necrosectomy. In the EVD group, 20 patients had a favorable prognosis and 9 had a poor prognosis, with 6 deaths. In the non-EVD group, 16 patients had a favorable prognosis and 3 had a poor prognosis, with 3 deaths. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score &lt; 9 (OR 9.5, 95% CI 1.5–77.0, <i>P</i> = 0.05), cerebral infarction (OR 15.6, 95% CI 2.3–144.0, <i>P</i> = 0.03), and the requirement for postoperative ventilatory support (OR 12.7, 95% CI 2.7–79.4, <i>P</i> = 0.01) were independent risk factors for poor patient outcomes.&#xa0;For patients with space-occupying cerebellar infarction, EVD might be an effective and safe treatment option. However, its efficacy and safety require further confirmation through prospective randomized clinical trials.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of external ventricular drainage in the treatment of space-occupying cerebellar infarction

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月29日

查看全文
  • Yasong Wu,
  • Zengbao Wu,
  • Ting Fan,
  • Lifei Lian,
  • Bo Chen,
  • Zhoubin Tan,
  • Hongquan Niu,
  • Lin Han,
  • Xueyan Wan

摘要

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of external ventricular drainage (EVD) in managing patients with space-occupying cerebellar infarction. The 48 patients were divided into two groups: the EVD group and the non-EVD group. The outcomes of the patient were assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), with scores of ≤ 3 indicating a favorable prognosis. Among the 48 patients, 29 underwent EVD, while 19 were in the non-EVD group. This non-EVD group included 14 patients who underwent suboccipital decompression and 5 who underwent suboccipital decompression combined with necrosectomy. In the EVD group, 20 patients had a favorable prognosis and 9 had a poor prognosis, with 6 deaths. In the non-EVD group, 16 patients had a favorable prognosis and 3 had a poor prognosis, with 3 deaths. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 9 (OR 9.5, 95% CI 1.5–77.0, P = 0.05), cerebral infarction (OR 15.6, 95% CI 2.3–144.0, P = 0.03), and the requirement for postoperative ventilatory support (OR 12.7, 95% CI 2.7–79.4, P = 0.01) were independent risk factors for poor patient outcomes. For patients with space-occupying cerebellar infarction, EVD might be an effective and safe treatment option. However, its efficacy and safety require further confirmation through prospective randomized clinical trials.