Re-examining decompressive craniectomy medial margin distance from midline as a metric for calculating the risk of post-traumatic hydrocephalus.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a life-saving procedure in severe traumatic brain injury, but is associated with higher rates of post-traumatic hydrocephalus (PTH). The relationship between the medial craniectomy margin's proximity to midline and frequency of developing PTH is controversial. The primary study objective was to determine whether average medial craniectomy margin distance from midline was closer to midline in patients who developed PTH after DC for severe TBI compared to patients that did not. The secondary objective was to determine if a threshold distance from midline could be identified, at which the risk of developing PTH increased if the DC was performed closer to midline than this threshold. A retrospective review was performed of 380 patients undergoing DC at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2014. Clinical, operative and demographic variables were collected, including age, sex, DC parameters and occurrence of PTH. Statistical analysis compared mean axial craniectomy margin distance from midline in patients with versus without PTH. Distances from midline were tested as potential thresholds. No significant difference was identified in mean axial craniectomy margin distance from midline in patients developing PTH compared with patients with no PTH (n = 24, 12.8 mm versus n = 356, 16.6 mm respectively, p = 0.086). No significant cutoff distance from midline was identified (n = 212, p = 0.201). This study, the largest to date, was unable to identify a threshold with sufficient discrimination to support clinical recommendations in terms of DC margins with regard to midline, including thresholds reportedly significant in previously published research.

Decompressive craniotomy: an international survey of practice.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke have devastating consequences and are major global public health issues. For patients that require a cerebral decompression after suffering a TBI or stroke, a decompressive craniectomy (DC) is the most commonly performed operation. However, retrospective non-randomized studies suggest that a decompressive craniotomy (DCO; also known as hinge or floating craniotomy), where a bone flap is replaced but not rigidly fixed, has comparable outcomes to DC. The primary aim of this project was to understand the current extent of usage of DC and DCO for TBI and stroke worldwide. METHOD: A questionnaire was designed and disseminated globally via emailing lists and social media to practicing neurosurgeons between June and November 2019. RESULTS: We received 208 responses from 60 countries [40 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)]. DC is used more frequently than DCO, however, about one-quarter of respondents are using a DCO in more than 25% of their patients. The three top indications for a DCO were an acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and a GCS of 9-12, ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 3-8, and ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 9-12. There were 8 DCO techniques used with the majority (60/125) loosely tying sutures to the bone flap. The majority (82%) stated that they were interested in collaborating on a randomized trial of DCO vs. DC. CONCLUSION: Our results show that DCO is a procedure carried out for TBI and stroke, especially in LMICs, and most commonly for an ASDH. The majority of the respondents were interested in collaborating on a is a future randomized trial.

Balancing the short-term benefits and long-term outcomes of decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury.

Introduction: The role of decompressive craniectomy in the management of neurological emergencies remains controversial. There is evidence available that it can reduce intracranial pressure, but it will not reverse the effects of the pathology that precipitated the neurological crisis, so there has always been concern that any reduction in mortality will result in an increase in the number of survivors with severe disability.Areas covered: The results of recent randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of the procedure are analyzed in order to determine the degree to which the short-term goals of reducing mortality and the long-term goals of a good functional outcome are achieved.Expert opinion: Given the results of the trials, there needs to be a change in the clinical decision-making paradigm such that decompression is reserved for patients who develop intractable intracranial hypertension and who are thought unlikely to survive without surgical intervention. In these circumstances, a more patient-centered discussion is required regarding the possibility and acceptability or otherwise of survival with severely impaired neurocognitive function.

Inadequate Decompressive Craniectomy Following a Wartime Traumatic Brain Injury - An Illustrative Case of Why Size Matters.

Traumatic brain injury has been called the "signature injury" of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the management of severe and penetrating brain injury has evolved considerably based on the experiences of military neurosurgeons. Current guidelines recommend that decompressive hemicraniectomy be performed with large, frontotemporoparietal bone flaps, but practice patterns vary markedly. The following case is illustrative of potential clinical courses, complications, and efforts to salvage inadequately-sized decompressive craniectomies performed for combat-related severe and penetrating brain injury. The authors follow this with a review of the current literature pertaining to decompressive craniectomy, and finally provide their recommendations for some of the technical nuances of performing decompressive hemicraniectomy after severe or penetrating brain injury.

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care.

Craniotomy Versus Decompressive Craniectomy for Acute Subdural Hematoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute subdural hematoma (SDH) is a major cause of morbidity after severe traumatic brain injury. Surgical evacuation of the hematoma, either via craniotomy or craniectomy, is the mainstay of treatment in patients with progressive neurologic deficits or significant mass effect. However, the decision to perform either procedure remains controversial. METHODS: A literature search using major online databases and a manual search of references on the topic of craniotomy and craniectomy for evacuation of subdural hematoma until September 2016 was performed. The outcome variables were analyzed which included residual SDH, revision rate, and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Six comparison studies, with a total number of 2006 craniotomy and 451 craniectomy patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent craniectomy scored significantly lower on the Glasgow Coma Scale at the time of initial presentation. Postoperatively, the rate of residual SDH was significantly lower in the craniectomy group than the craniotomy group (P = 0.004), with no difference in the revision rate. The odds of a poor outcome at follow-up was found to be lower in the craniotomy group (50.1% vs. 60.1%, respectively; P = 0.004). Similarly, mortality rates was lower in the craniotomy group than the craniectomy group (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy in treatment of acute SDH remain controversial. In this study, craniectomy was associated with worse clinical presentation and postoperative outcome compared with craniotomy. However, craniectomy was associated with lower rate of residual SDH after treatment.

A standardized method to measure brain shifts with decompressive hemicraniectomy.

BACKGROUND: A standardized, reliable, and practical method for measuring decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) defects and brain shifts in malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarction is needed for reliable comparisons between computed tomography (CT) scans. Such a method could facilitate further studies on the effects of DHC. NEW METHOD: We describe and apply a method for measuring DHC defects and brain shifts on CT scans in 25 patients with malignant MCA territory infarction. Craniectomy area is adjusted for variations in head size, CT slice orientation is standardized, and the site of each measurement is defined. This method uses standard radiology platforms and volume-acquired helical CT scans. RESULTS: The measurements include a DHC size index (adjusted for variations in head size), midline brain shift (subfalcine), outward brain herniation (transcalvarial), and the diameter of the contralateral atrium of the lateral ventricle. Inter-rater agreement for these measurements in a sample of 15 subjects is excellent (correlation coefficients 0.90-0.98). COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: In contrast to previously reported methods, this method is tested in acute stroke patients, compensates for variability in head size, and includes a midline brain shift (subfalcine) and brain ventricular system measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A practical method for measuring DHC size and brain shifts designed to be consistent between scans is proposed. This method should facilitate comparisons of measurements between serial scans, between patients, and perhaps between studies. This method could be useful in medical and surgical studies of brain herniations in malignant MCA territory infarction, and possibly other conditions.

Predicted Unfavorable Neurologic Outcome Is Overestimated by the Marshall Computed Tomography Score, Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head Injury (CRASH), and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) Models in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Managed with Early Decompressive Craniectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is of public health interest and produces significant mortality and disability in Colombia. Calculators and prognostic models have been developed to establish neurologic outcomes. We tested prognostic models (the Marshall computed tomography [CT] score, International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT), and Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head Injury) for 14-day mortality, 6-month mortality, and 6-month outcome in patients with TBI at a university hospital in Colombia. METHODS: A 127-patient cohort with TBI was treated in a regional trauma center in Colombia over 2 years and bivariate and multivariate analyses were used. Discriminatory power of the models, their accuracy, and precision was assessed by both logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Shapiro-Wilk, χ2, and Wilcoxon test were used to compare real outcomes in the cohort against predicted outcomes. RESULTS: The group's median age was 33 years, and 84.25% were male. The injury severity score median was 25, and median Glasgow Coma Scale motor score was 3. Six-month mortality was 29.13%. Six-month unfavorable outcome was 37%. Mortality prediction by Marshall CT score was 52.8%, P = 0.104 (AUC 0.585; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 0.489-0.681), the mortality prediction by CRASH prognosis calculator was 59.9%, P < 0.001 (AUC 0.706; 95% CI 0.590-0.821), and the unfavorable outcome prediction by IMPACT was 77%, P < 0.048 (AUC 0.670; 95% CI 0.575-0.763). CONCLUSIONS: In a university hospital in Colombia, the Marshall CT score, IMPACT, and Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head Injury models overestimated the adverse neurologic outcome in patients with severe head trauma.

Long-term outcome and quality of life after craniectomy in speech-dominant swollen middle cerebral artery infarction.

BACKGROUND: Decompressive craniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (MMCAI) reduces mortality. Whether speech-dominant side infarction results in less favorable outcome is unclear. This study compared functional outcome, quality of life, and mental health among patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side infarction. METHODS: All patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy for MMCAI were included. Demographics, side of infarction, and speech-dominant hemisphere were recorded. Outcome at follow-up was assessed by global functioning (modified Rankin Scale score), neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), dependency (Barthel Index), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and quality of life (Short Form-36). RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 45 patients (mean age ± SD, 48.1 ± 11.6 years; 58 % male) were alive at follow-up, and 26 were eligible for analysis [follow-up, median (interquartile range): 66 months (32-93)]. The speech-dominant hemisphere was affected in 13 patients. Outcome for patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side MMCAI was similar regarding neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, mean ± SD: 10.3 ± 7.0 vs. 8.9 ± 2.7, respectively; p = 0.51), global functioning [modified Rankin Scale score, median (IQR): 3.0 [2-4] vs. 4.0 [3-4]; p = 0.34], dependence (Barthel Index, mean ± SD: 16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 13.1 ± 4.8; p = 0.12), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, mean ± SD: anxiety, 5.0 ± 4.5 vs. 7.3 ± 5.8; p = 0.30; depression, 5.0 ± 5.2 vs. 5.9 ± 3.9; p = 0.62). The mean quality of life scores (Short Form-36) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical or clinical difference in functional outcome and quality of life in patients with speech-dominant compared to non-dominant side infarction. The side affected should not influence suitability for decompressive craniectomy.

Management of hydrocephalus after decompressive craniectomy.

AIM: We set out to investigate the optimal timing for shunt placement in patients with hydrocephalus after decompressive craniectomy (DC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 63 consecutive patients that underwent DC because of traumatic brain injury, middle cerebral artery infarct or intracerebral hemorrhage. Hydrocephalus was diagnosed in 23/63 patients. The 23 patients were divided into two groups. The first group (A) consisted of 11 patients in whom a ventriculoperitoneal shunt was placed simultaneously or before cranioplasty. In the second group (B) of 12 patients, we performed cranioplasty and a ventriculostomy with monitoring of intracranial pressure was placed simultaneously. After 3 to 5 days, a ventriculoperitoneal shunt was placed with the most appropriate opening pressure. RESULTS: In group A, nine out of the eleven patients experienced complications, mainly hygromas or hematomas that required reoperation. In group B, none of the patients was reoperated. The use of programmable valves allowed for non-invasive revision of the opening pressure when required. CONCLUSION: Cranioplasty and ventriculostomy followed by a second stage placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt are associated with fewer complications in the treatment of hydrocephalus after DC.

DESTINY-S: attitudes of physicians toward disability and treatment in malignant MCA infarction.

BACKGROUND: Decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) reduces mortality and improves outcome after malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction but leaves a high number of survivors severely disabled. Attitudes among physicians toward the degree of disability that is considered acceptable and the impact of aphasia may play a major role in treatment decisions. METHODS: DESTINY-S is a multicenter, international, cross-sectional survey among 1,860 physicians potentially involved in the treatment of malignant MCA infarction. Questions concerned the grade of disability, the hemisphere of the stroke, and the preferred treatment for malignant MCA infarction. RESULTS: mRS scores of 3 or better were considered acceptable by the majority of respondents (79.3%). Only few considered a mRS score of 5 still acceptable (5.8%). A mRS score of 4 was considered acceptable by 38.0%. Involved hemisphere (dominant vs. non-dominant) was considered a major clinical symptom influencing treatment decisions in 47.7% of respondents, also reflected by significantly different rates for DHC as preferred treatment in dominant versus non-dominant hemispheric infarction (46.9 vs. 72.9%). Significant differences in acceptable disability and treatment decisions were found among geographic regions, medical specialties, and respondents with different work experiences. CONCLUSION: Little consensus exists among physicians regarding acceptable outcome and therapeutic management after malignant MCA infarction, and physician's recommendations do not correlate with available evidence. We advocate for a decision-making process that balances scientific evidence, patient preference, and clinical expertise.

Review and recommendations on management of refractory raised intracranial pressure in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Intracranial hypertension is commonly encountered in poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. Refractory raised intracranial pressure is associated with poor prognosis. The management of raised intracranial pressure is commonly referenced to experiences in traumatic brain injury. However, pathophysiologically, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is different from traumatic brain injury. Currently, there is a paucity of consensus on the management of refractory raised intracranial pressure in spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage. We discuss in this paper the role of hyperosmolar agents, hypothermia, barbiturates, and decompressive craniectomy in managing raised intracranial pressure refractory to first-line treatment, in which preliminary data supported the use of hypertonic saline and secondary decompressive craniectomy. Future clinical trials should be carried out to delineate better their roles in management of raised intracranial pressure in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients.

Safety of untreated autologous cranioplasty after extracorporeal storage at -26 degrees Celsius.

BACKGROUND: Given the improved survival of patients requiring decompressive craniectomies, the frequency of subsequent cranioplasties are on the rise. The most feared complication of autologous cranioplasty is infection and one method for reducing the rate of infection, is to store the bone flaps at subnormal temperatures. However, to date there is no defined temperature for flap storage and temperature ranges from - 18 to - 83°C have been described in literature. Considering our limited resources it has been the practice at our center to store bone flaps at - 26°C. In this study, we have retrospectively reviewed our practice and have audited this choice of temperature with respect to the frequency of infections. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted for all cranioplasties performed at our center between January 2001 to March 2011, using autologous bone which was cryopreserved according to institutional protocol. During this period the operative and cryopreservation protocol remained the same. All patient records including charts, notes and laboratory findings were reviewed with a specific focus to identify infections. RESULTS: Of the 88 patients included in the study, only 3 (3.40%) patients were found to show signs of infection. Of these, two patients had superficial surgical site infections which resolved with oral antibiotics (Co-Amoxiclav 1 gm BD for 7 days). However the third patient developed deep surgical site infection requiring re-exploration and washout. All three patients had complete resolution of infection with preservation of autologous bone. CONCLUSION: Despite our method of keeping the bone flap in freezer at - 26°C we have reported an acceptable rate of infection and raised the notion whether there is a justification for sophisticated and costly equipment for bone flap preservation, especially in resource depleted setups.

Ethical considerations for performing decompressive craniectomy as a life-saving intervention for severe traumatic brain injury.

In all fields of clinical medicine, there is an increasing awareness that outcome must be assessed in terms of quality of life and cost effectiveness, rather than merely length of survival. This is especially the case when considering decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury. The procedure itself is technically straightforward and involves temporarily removing a large section of the skull vault in order to provide extra space into which the injured brain can expand. A number of studies have demonstrated many patients going on to make a good long-term functional recovery, however, this is not always the case and a significant number survive but are left with severe neurocognitive impairment. Unfortunately, many of these patients are young adults who were previously fit and well and are, therefore, likely to spend many years in a condition that they may feel to be unacceptable, and this raises a number of ethical issues regarding consent and resource allocation. In an attempt to address these issues, we have used the analytical framework proposed by Jonsen, that requires systematic consideration of medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life and contextual features.