Efficacy evaluation of neuroendoscopy vs burr hole drainage in the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: An observational study

Table 1 Comparison of general data between the two groups

Group	n	Sex as male/female	Age in yr	PMGS
Neuroendoscopy	61	42/19	57.26 ± 9.58	2.36 ± 0.96
Burr hole drainage	61	39/22	56.41 ± 8.66	2.18 ± 0.93
P value		> 0.05	> 0.05	> 0.05

Data are presented as n or mean ± SD. PMGS: Preoperative Markwalder grading scale.

Table 2 Comparison of brain tissue 1/2 re-expansion by computed tomography at different time points after operation in chronic subdural hematoma patients

Group	n	Postoperative time in d
		1	3	12
Neuroendoscopy	61	25 (41)	42 (69)	60 (98)
Burr hole drainage	61	13 (21)	26 (43)	57 (93)
χ2		5.503	8.505	0.175
P		< 0.05	< 0.05	> 0.05

Data are presented as n (%), unless otherwise noted.

Table 3 Comparison of brain tissue re-expansion by computed tomography at different time points after operation in chronic subdural hematoma patients

Group	n	Postoperative time in d
		1	3	12
Neuroendoscopy	61	14 (23)	37 (61)	57 (93)
Burr hole drainage	61	5 (8)	22 (36)	51 (84)
χ2		3.990	6.433	2.017
P		< 0.05	< 0.05	> 0.05

Data are presented as n (%), unless otherwise noted.

Table 4 Comparison of postoperative complications of chronic subdural hematoma patients

Group	n	RH	IH	LCP	TP
Neuroendoscopy	61	1 (2)	0	0	0
Burr hole drainage	61	5 (8)	3 (5)	0	0
χ2	4.319
P	< 0.05

Data are presented as n (%), unless otherwise noted. RH: Recurrence of hematoma; IH: Intracranial hematoma; LCP: Low cranial pressure; TP: Tension pneumocephalus.