Endoscope-assisted microsurgical evacuation versus external ventricular drainage for the treatment of cast intraventricular hemorrhage: results of a comparative series

Cast intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) is associated to high morbidity/mortality rates. External ventricular drainage (EVD), the most common treatment adopted in these patients, may be unsuccessful due to short-term drain obstruction and requires weeks for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) clearing, increasing the risks of ventriculits. Administration of intraventricular fibrinolytic agents and endoscopic evacuation have been proposed as alternative treatments, but with equally poor results. We present a retrospective analysis of two groups of patients who respectively underwent endoscope-assisted microsurgical evacuation versus EVD for the treatment of cast IVH. In a 10-year time, 25 patients with cast IVH underwent microsurgical, endoscope-assisted evacuation. Twenty-seven were instead treated by EVD. The two groups were compared in terms of hematoma evacuation, CSF clearing time, infection rates, need for permanent shunting, short/long-term survival, and functional outcome. In endoscope-assisted surgeries, full CSF clearance required 14 ± 3 days in 20 patients and 21 ± 3 days in 5; in the EVD group, 21 ± 3 days were needed in 12 patients, 28 ± 3 days in 11, and 35 ± 3 days in 4. Permanent shunting was inserted respectively in 19 endoscopic and 23 EVD patients. Final mRs score was 0–3 in 13 endoscopic cases, 4–5 in the remaining 12. In the EVD group, 7 subjects scored mRs 0–3, 16 scored 4–5; 4 died. In our experience, endoscope-assisted evacuation of cast IVH reduced ICU staying and CSF clearance times. It also seemed to improve neurological outcome, but without affecting the need for permanent shunt. On the counterside, it increases the number of severely disabled survivors.