Surgical complications of decompressive craniectomy for head trauma

2009 ◽  
Vol 152 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cumhur Kilincer ◽  
Mustafa Kemal Hamamcioglu
2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 1017-1023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Vieira ◽  
Thiago C. Guimarães ◽  
Igor V. Faquini ◽  
Jose L. Silva ◽  
Tammy Saboia ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEDecompressive craniectomy (DC) is a widely used procedure in neurosurgery; however, few studies focus on the best surgical technique for the procedure. The authors’ objective was to conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing 2 techniques for performing DC: with watertight duraplasty and without watertight duraplasty (rapid-closure DC).METHODSThe study population comprised patients ranging in age from 18 to 60 years who were admitted to the Neurotrauma Service of the Hospital da Restauração with a clinical indication for unilateral decompressive craniectomy. Patients were randomized by numbered envelopes into 2 groups: with watertight duraplasty (control group) and without watertight duraplasty (test group). After unilateral DC was completed, watertight duraplasty was performed in the control group, while in the test group, no watertight duraplasty was performed and the exposed parenchyma was covered with Surgicel and the remaining dura mater. Patients were then monitored daily from the date of surgery until hospital discharge or death. The primary end point was the incidence of surgical complications (CSF leak, wound infection, brain abscess, or subgaleal fluid collections). The following were analyzed as secondary end points: clinical outcome (analyzed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS]), surgical time, and hospital costs.RESULTSFifty-eight patients were enrolled, 29 in each group. Three patients were excluded, leaving 27 in the test group and 28 in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups regarding age, Glasgow Coma Scale score at the time of surgery, GOS score, and number of postoperative follow-up days. There were 9 surgical complications (5 in the control group and 4 in the test group), with no significant differences between the groups. The mean surgical time in the control group was 132 minutes, while in the test group the average surgical time was 101 minutes, a difference of 31 minutes (p = 0.001). The mean reduction in total cost was $420.00 USD (a 23.4% reduction) per procedure in the test group.CONCLUSIONSRapid-closure DC without watertight duraplasty is a safe procedure. It is not associated with a higher incidence of surgical complications (CSF leak, wound infection, brain abscess, or subgaleal fluid collections), and it decreased surgical time by 31 minutes on average. There was also a hospital cost reduction of $420.00 USD (23.4% reduction) per procedure.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02594137 (clinicaltrials.gov)


AORN Journal ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Wick ◽  
James Wade ◽  
Daniel Rohrer ◽  
Oisin O'Neill

Brain Injury ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Wen ◽  
Quan-Cheng Li ◽  
Shu-Chao Wang ◽  
Yu Lin ◽  
Gu Li ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. 1170-1175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire J. Creutzfeldt ◽  
Marcelo D. Vilela ◽  
William T. Longstreth

OBJECT Two patients who underwent decompressive craniectomy after head trauma deteriorated secondary to paradoxical herniation, one after lumbar puncture and the other after ventriculoperitoneal shunting. They motivated the authors to investigate further provoked paradoxical herniation. METHODS The authors reviewed the records of 205 patients who were treated at a single hospital with decompressive craniectomy for head trauma to identify those who had had lumbar puncture performed or a ventriculoperitoneal shunt placed after craniectomy but before cranioplasty. Among the patients who met these criteria, those with provoked paradoxical herniation were identified. The authors also sought to identify similar cases from the literature. Exact binomials were used to calculate 95% CIs. RESULTS None of 26 patients who underwent a lumbar puncture within 1 month of craniectomy deteriorated, whereas 2 of 10 who underwent a lumbar puncture 1 month afterward did so (20% [95% CI 2.4%–55.6%]). Similarly, after ventriculoperitoneal shunting, 3 of 10 patients deteriorated (30% [95% CI 6.7%–65.2%]). Timing of the procedure and the appearance of the skin flap were important factors in deterioration after lumbar puncture but not after ventriculoperitoneal shunting. A review of the literature identified 15 additional patients with paradoxical herniation provoked by lumbar puncture and 7 by ventriculoperitoneal shunting. CONCLUSIONS Lumbar puncture and ventriculoperitoneal shunting carry substantial risk when performed in a patient after decompressive craniectomy and before cranioplasty. When the condition that prompts decompression (such as brain swelling associated with stroke or trauma) requires time to resolve, risk is associated with lumbar puncture performed ≥ 1 month after decompressive craniectomy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document