Minimally-invasive Surgery Versus Craniotomy in Patients With Supratentorial Hypertensive Intrace… (NCT02811614) | Clinical Trial Compass
CompletedNot Applicable
Minimally-invasive Surgery Versus Craniotomy in Patients With Supratentorial Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage
China733 participantsStarted 2016-07-01
Plain-language summary
The effectiveness of craniotomy in the treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage remains controversial. Two main types of minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic evacuation and stereotactic aspiration, have been attempted for hematoma removal and show some advantages. However, prospective and controlled studies are still lacking. This is a multi-center randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether minimally invasive hematoma evacuation with endoscopic or stereotactic aspiration will improve the outcome in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage compared with small-boneflap craniotomy. Patients will be randomly assigned to endoscopy group, stereotactic aspiration group or small-boneflap craniotomy group in a 1:1:1 ratio.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years – 80 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage on CT scan with the hematoma volume ≥25mL
* Adult patients with GCS score ≥5
* Admitted within 24h of ictus
Exclusion Criteria:
* Intracerebral hemorrhage caused by tumor, coagulopathy, aneurysm, or arteriovenous malformation
* Concurrent head injury or history of head injury
* Multiple intracerebral hemorrhage
* Known advanced demential or disability before
* With indications of terminal brain hernia
* Severe concomitant diseases that affect life expectancy
* Patients having taken anti-platelet or anticoagulant drugs for a long time
* With severe intraventricular hemorrhage
* Pregnant women
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.