A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two surgical procedures of decompressive craniectomy in patients with traumatic brain injury: Dural closure without dural closure
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
The scope and purpose of this work is 2-fold: to synthesize the available evidence and to translate it into recommendations. This document provides recommendations only when there is evidence to support them. As such, they do not constitute a complete protocol for clinical use. Our intention is that these recommendations be used by others to develop treatment protocols, which necessarily need to incorporate consensus and clinical judgment in areas where current evidence is lacking or insufficient. We think it is important to have evidence-based recommendations to clarify what aspects of practice currently can and cannot be supported by evidence, to encourage use of evidence-based treatments that exist, and to encourage creativity in treatment and research in areas where evidence does not exist. The communities of neurosurgery and neuro-intensive care have been early pioneers and supporters of evidence-based medicine and plan to continue in this endeavor. The complete guideline document, which summarizes and evaluates the literature for each topic, and supplemental appendices (A-I) are available online at https://www.braintrauma.org/coma/guidelines.
The aim of this study was to assess outcome following decompressive craniectomy for malignant brain swelling due to closed traumatic brain injury (TBI). During a 48-month period (March 2000-March 2004), 50 of 967 consecutive patients with closed TBI experienced diffuse brain swelling and underwent decompressive craniectomy, without removal of clots or contusion, to control intracranial pressure (ICP) or to reverse dangerous brain shifts. Diffuse injury was demonstrated in 44 patients, an evacuated mass lesion in four in whom decompressive craniectomy had been performed as a separate procedure, and a nonevacuated mass lesion in two. Decompressive craniectomy was performed urgently in 10 patients before ICP monitoring; in 40 patients the procedure was performed after ICP had become unresponsive to conventional medical management as outlined in the American Association of Neurological Surgeons guidelines. Survivors were followed up for at least 3 months posttreatment to determine their Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score. Decompressive craniectomy lowered ICP to less than 20 mm Hg in 85% of patients. In the 40 patients who had undergone ICP monitoring before decompression, ICP decreased from a mean of 23.9 to 14.4 mm Hg (p < 0.001). Fourteen of 50 patients died, and 16 either remained in a vegetative state (seven patients) or were severely disabled (nine patients). Twenty patients had a good outcome (GOS Score 4-5). Among 30-day survivors, good outcome occurred in 17, 67, and 67% of patients with postresuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 3 to 5, 6 to 8, and 9 to 15, respectively (p < 0.05). Outcome was unaffected by abnormal pupillary response to light, timing of decompressive craniectomy, brain shift as demonstrated on computerized tomography scanning, and patient age, possibly because of the small number of patients in each of the subsets. Complications included hydrocephalus (five patients), hemorrhagic swelling ipsilateral to the craniectomy site (eight patients), and subdural hygroma (25 patients). Decompressive craniectomy was associated with a better-than-expected functional outcome in patients with medically uncontrollable ICP and/or brain herniation, compared with outcomes in other control cohorts reported on in the literature.
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) has been used for many years in the management of patients with elevated intracranial pressure and cerebral edema. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating the clinical and cost effectiveness of DC in trauma and stroke. While DC has demonstrable efficacy in saving life, it is accompanied by a myriad of non-trivial complications that have been inadequately highlighted in prospective clinical trials. Missing from our current understanding is a comprehensive analysis of all potential complications associated with DC. Here, we review the available literature, we tabulate all reported complications, and we calculate their frequency for specific indications. Of over 1500 records initially identified, a final total of 142 eligible records were included in our comprehensive analysis. We identified numerous complications related to DC that have not been systematically reviewed. Complications were of three major types: (1) Hemorrhagic (2) Infectious/Inflammatory, and (3) Disturbances of the CSF compartment. Complications associated with cranioplasty fell under similar major types, with additional complications relating to the bone flap. Overall, one of every ten patients undergoing DC may suffer a complication necessitating additional medical and/or neurosurgical intervention. While DC has received increased attention as a potential therapeutic option in a variety of situations, like any surgical procedure, DC is not without risk. Neurologists and neurosurgeons must be aware of all the potential complications of DC in order to properly advise their patients.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.