Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases Column

Comparison of short-term prognosis and rebleeding risk among three surgical approaches for supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage

  • Ang LI ,
  • Qingfeng HONG ,
  • Wei LIU ,
  • Jianchen ZHU ,
  • Yalong ZHANG ,
  • Dazhao FANG
Expand
  • 1.Department of Neurosurgery,Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Huai'an First People's Hospital,Huai'an 223300,Jiangsu,China
    2.Department of Neurosurgery,the Seventh Division Hospital of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps,Kuitun 833200,Xinjiang,China

Received date: 2026-04-19

  Online published: 2026-08-05

Abstract

Objective To compare the short-term neurological prognosis and rebleeding risk among patients with supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) who were treated with neuroendoscopic hematoma evacuation (neuroendoscopy group), soft-channel puncture drainage with urokinase infusion (puncture group), and craniotomy for hematoma evacuation (craniotomy group). Methods A total of 384 patients with supratentorial HICH who were admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery, Huai'an First People's Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University between January 2021 and December 2025 were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were assigned to the craniotomy group (n = 121), neuroendoscopy group (n = 107), and puncture group (n = 156) based on the surgical modality. The inclusion criteria were a hematoma volume ranging from 30 to 80 mL and an admission Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score between 5 and 12. Three-category propensity score overlap weighting (PS-OW) was employed to balance the baseline characteristics across the groups. The primary outcome was a poor short-term prognosis, which was defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 4 or higher at the time of discharge. Secondary outcomes included the rebleeding rate, the GCS score at discharge, the length of hospital stay, and the total hospitalization cost. Results After weighting, the baseline covariates were well-balanced among the three groups (all absolute standardized mean differences < 0.1). The weighted event rate of poor prognosis in the craniotomy group was 22.8%, which was higher than the 11.0% in the neuroendoscopy group and the 11.5% in the puncture group. When compared with the neuroendoscopy group, the craniotomy group exhibited a significantly higher risk of poor prognosis (odds ratio [OR]=2.389, 95%CI: 1.029 - 5.545, P = 0.043). A similar trend was noted when comparing the craniotomy group with the puncture group (OR = 2.280, 95%CI: 0.982 - 5.290, P = 0.055). No statistically significant difference in the rebleeding rate was detected among the three groups. The craniotomy group had the longest hospital stay and the highest total cost, whereas the puncture group had the lowest. The neuroendoscopy group presented a slightly better GCS score at discharge than the craniotomy group. Conclusions In the overlapping population eligible for all three surgical modalities, craniotomy was associated with a poorer short-term neurological prognosis and a greater medical burden compared with minimally invasive approaches. Meanwhile, no clinically significant difference in rebleeding risk was observed among the three procedures.

Cite this article

Ang LI , Qingfeng HONG , Wei LIU , Jianchen ZHU , Yalong ZHANG , Dazhao FANG . Comparison of short-term prognosis and rebleeding risk among three surgical approaches for supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2026 , 42(14) : 2513 -2520 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.14.004

References

[1] GBD 2021 Stroke Risk Factor Collaboratos. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2021: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2024, 23: 973-1003. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00369-7 .
[2] DAMMERS R, BECK J, VOLOVICI V, et al. Advancing the surgical treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage: Study design and research directions[J]. World Neurosurg, 2022, 161: 367-375. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.084 .
[3] PUY L, PARRY-JONES A R, SANDSET E C, et al. Intracerebral haemorrhage[J]. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2023, 9: 14. doi:10.1038/s41572-023-00424-7 .
[4] MENDELOW A D, GREGSON B A, ROWAN E N, et al. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial lobar intracerebral haematomas (STICH II): A randomised trial[J]. Lancet, 2013, 382(9890): 397-408. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60986-1 .
[5] HANLEY D F, THOMPSON R E, ROSENBLUM M, et al. Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE III): A randomised, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet, 2019, 393(10175): 1021-1032. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30195-3 .
[6] PRADILLA G, RATCLIFF J J, HALL A J, et al. Trial of early minimally invasive removal of intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. N Engl J Med, 2024, 390(14): 1277-1289. doi:10.1056/nejmoa2308440 .
[7] 李元贵, 杨燕文, 王晓麒, 等. 软通道血肿穿刺引流术与神经内镜颅内血肿清除术治疗高血压脑出血的疗效[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2023, 39(7): 833-837. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725. 2023.07.007 .
[8] 翟晓雷, 周大志, 刘冬红, 等. 微创抽吸辅助无延迟开颅减压治疗原发性脑出血伴脑疝的随机对照研究[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2022, 38(11): 1328-1332. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725. 2022.11.006 .
[9] WANG L, ZHOU T, WANG P, et al. Efficacy and safety of NeuroEndoscopic Surgery for IntraCerebral Hemorrhage: A randomized, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint trial (NESICH)[J]. Int J Stroke, 2024, 19(5): 587-592. doi:10.1177/17474930241232292 .
[10] HUAN J, YAO M, MA Y, et al. Surgical interventions for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: A systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. eClinicalMedicine, 2025, 79: 102999. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102999 .
[11] GREENBERG S M, ZIAI W C, CORDONNIER C, et al. 2022 guideline for the management of patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: A guideline from the American heart association/American stroke association[J]. Stroke, 2022, 53(7): e282-e361. doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000407 .
[12] LI Z, YOU M, LONG C, et al. Hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage: An update on prediction and treatment[J]. Front Neurol, 2020, 11: 702. doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00702 .
[13] MAYER S A, FRONTERA J A, JANKOWITZ B, et al. Recommended primary outcomes for clinical trials evaluating hemostatic agents in patients with intracranial hemorrhage: A consensus statement[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2021, 4(9): e2123629. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23629 .
[14] LI F, MORGAN K L, ZASLAVSKY A M. Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting[J]. J Am Stat Assoc, 2018, 113(521): 390-400. doi:10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466 .
[15] FUNK M J, WESTREICH D, WIESEN C, et al. Doubly robust estimation of causal effects[J]. Am J Epidemiol, 2011, 173(7): 761-767. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq439 .
[16] RENNERT R C, TRINGALE K, STEINBERG J A, et al. Surgical management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: Insights from randomized controlled trials[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2020, 43(3): 999-1006. doi:10.1007/s10143-019-01115-2 .
[17] HOU D, LU Y, WU D, et al. Minimally invasive surgery in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Front Neurol, 2022, 12: 789757. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.789757 .
[18] DE OLIVEIRA MANOEL A L. Surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage[J]. Crit Care, 2020, 24(1): 45. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-2749-2 .
Outlines

/