
95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Neurol.
Sec. Neurorehabilitation
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1564927
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Chronic hydrocephalus represents a common complication following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH); however, the underlying mechanisms driving its pathogenesis remain incompletely understood. Furthermore, current evidence regarding optimal preventive strategies to mitigate hydrocephalus development remains controversial within the neurosurgical community. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of distinct cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage modalities in mitigating the risk of developing chronic hydrocephalus among patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) through a comparative effectiveness study design . Method: The patients with aSAH treated in our hospital from January 202 1 to January 2024 were analyzed retrospectively. Firstly, the related factors of chronic hydrocephalus in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage were compared between patients with cerebrospinal fluid drainage and patients without cerebrospinal fluid drainag e. Then, the related factors of hydrocephalus in patients with aneurysm subarachnoid hemorrhage with different cerebrospinal fluid drainage were compared. Univariate and multivariate logical regression analysis was used to determine the risk factors associated with chronic hydrocephalus. Result: Of the 246 hospitalized patients with aSAH , whether or not to receive cerebrospinal fluid drainage was associated with the formation of chronic hydrocephalus. A total of 67 patients (27.2%) developed hydrocephalus, of which 47 patients (34.8%) received cerebrospinal fluid drainage, while 20 (18%) patients developed chronic hydrocephalus. Of all IVH patients who received cerebrospinal fluid drainage, 34 (25.2%) received intermittent lumbar puncture drainage, 75 (55.5%) received continuous drainage in the lumbar cistern, and 26 (19.3%) received extraventricular drainage. Univariate analysis showed that different drainage methods had significant differences in postoperative chronic hydrocephalus in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (Purge 0.009). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that different ways of cerebrospinal fluid drainage were independent risk factors for chronic hydrocephalus in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage .Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage must perform cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Among the three different drainage methods: lumbar puncture intermittent drainage, lumbar cistern continuous drainage, and extraventricular drainage, continuous lumbar cistern drainage is more effective in reducing the formation of chronic hydrocephalus.
Keywords: aneurysmal subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Chronic hydrocephalus, Cerebrospinal fluid drainage, Risk factors, prognosis
Received: 22 Jan 2025; Accepted: 01 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhou, Liu, Yan, Peng, Chen, Wu, Luo, Huang and Wu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Botao Wu, Zhuzhou Central Hospital, Zhuzhou, Hunan, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.