Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury – A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cisternostomy as an Adjuvant or Standalone Approach for Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of morbidity in all age groups worldwide. Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a salvage procedure in patients with TBI. The outcome and quality of life following DC is questionable. Basal cisternostomy (BC) has been proposed to reduce edema and lead to brain relaxation. It was initially used as an adjunct in TBI patients, thereby improving outcomes. With gaining popularity among neurosurgeons, BC was used as a standalone approach in TBI patients. This network meta-analysis aims to analyze the role of BC either as an adjunct or as a standalone approach in managing TBI patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed and SCOPUS) was performed using the search strategy using the field terms and medical subheading terms (MeSH Terms) to retrieve studies describing the role of BC in patients with TBI either as an adjunct with DC or standalone treatment and their outcome.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles were selected for full-text review and 18 articles were selected for the final analysis. BC alone group was found to have minimum in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.348; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.254 to 0.477) followed by DC combined with BC group (OR, 0.645; 95% CrI, 0.476 to 0.875). DC combined with the BC group was found to have a minimum duration of mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.114; 95% CrI, 0.005 to 2.451) followed by the BC alone group (OR, 0.604; 95% CrI, 0.024 to 15.346). DC combined with the BC group were found to have the maximum Glasgow Outcome Scale score (OR, 1.661; 95% CrI, 0.907 to 3.041) followed by the BC alone group (OR, 1.553; 95% CrI, 0.907 to 3.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed that BC alone was associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates in TBI patients. DC with BC had decreased the requirement of mechanical ventilation. However, larger multi-centric studies from other parts of the world are required to confirm these findings.

Role of decompressive craniectomy in the management of acute ischemic stroke (Review)

The application of decompressive craniectomy (DC) is thoroughly documented in the management of brain edema, particularly following traumatic brain injury. However, an increasing amount of concern is developing among the universal medical community as regards the application of DC in the treatment of other causes of brain edema, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage, sinus thrombosis and encephalitis. Managing stroke continues to remain challenging, and demands the aggressive and intensive consulting of a number of medical specialties. Middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarcts, which consist of 1-10% of all supratentorial infarcts, are often associated with mass effects, and high mortality and morbidity rates. Over the past three decades, a number of neurosurgical medical centers have reported their experience with the application of DC in the treatment of malignant MCA infarction with varying results. In addition, over the past decade, major efforts have been dedicated to multicenter randomized clinical trials. The present study reviews the pertinent literature to outline the use of DC in the management of malignant MCA infarction. The PubMed database was systematically searched for the following terms: 'Malignant cerebral infarction', 'surgery for stroke', 'DC for cerebral infarction', and all their combinations. Case reports were excluded from the review. The articles were categorized into a number of groups; the majority of these were human clinical studies, with a few animal experimental clinical studies. The surgical technique involved was DC, or hemicraniectomy. Other aspects that were included in the selection of articles were methodological characteristics and the number of patients. The multicenter randomized trials were promising. The mortality rate has unanimously decreased. As for the functional outcome, different scales were employed; the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended was not sufficient; the Modified Rankin Scale and Bathel index, as well as other scales, were applied. Other aspects considered were demographics, statistics and the very interesting radiological ones. There is no doubt that DC decreases mortality rates, as shown in all clinical trials. Functional outcome appears to be the goal standard in modern-era neurosurgery, and quality of life should be further discussed among the medical community and with patient consent.

Comparison of the effects of stepwise intracranial decompression and decompressive craniectomy in the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To compare the effects of stepwise intracranial decompression (SID) and decompressive craniectomy (DC) on severe traumatic brain injury.

METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted at The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Ninety two patients were divided into 2 groups according to the random number table method. The study group received SID, whereas the control group received DC. The surgical time and intraoperative bleeding of the 2 groups of patients were recorded, neurological function and glasgow coma score before and after treatment in both groups, incidence of complications, prognostic situation, and levels of brain oxygen metabolism indicators before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 92 patients who agreed, 46 were assigned to the study and control groups, and 6 patients were excluded. Finally, 86 patients were analyzed, including 43 in the study group and 43 in the control group. After treatment, the glasgow coma score scores of the 2 groups increased compared to before treatment; the study group had a higher score, The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score decreased compared to before treatment, and the study group had a lower score (P < .05). The incidence of complications in the study group (4.65%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (18.60%) (P < .05). The good prognosis rate of the research group (41.86%) was significantly higher than that of the control group (16.28%) (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with DC, using SID to treat severe traumatic brain injury can shorten surgical time and reduce intraoperative bleeding, more effectively improve patients neurological function and consciousness state, reduce the incidence of complications, and regulate brain oxygen metabolism status, which is beneficial for improving prognosis and ensuring a good outcome of the disease.

Complications of Decompressive Craniectomy: A Case-Based Review

Background Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a frequently performed procedure to treat intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke. DC is a salvage procedure that reduces mortality at the expense of severe disability and compromises the quality of life. The procedure is not without serious complications.

Methods We describe the complications following DC and its management in a case-based review in this article.

Results Complications after DC are classified as early or late complications based on the time of occurrence. Early complication includes hemorrhage, external cerebral herniation, wound complications, CSF leak/fistula, and seizures/epilepsy. Contusion expansion, new contralateral epidural, and subdural hematoma in the immediate postoperative period mandate surgical intervention. It is necessary to repeat non-contrast CT head at 24 hours and 48 hours following DC. Late complication includes subdural hygroma, hydrocephalus, syndrome of the trephined, bone resorption, and falls on the unprotected cranium. An early cranioplasty is an effective strategy to mitigate most of the late complications.

Conclusions DC can be associated with a number of complications. One should be aware of the possible complications, and timely intervention is required.

Unusual presentation in syndrome of trephined - A unique case observation

Background

Syndrome of trephined (SoT) is a well-recognized complication of decompressive craniectomy (DC). The understanding of SoT has improved more recently with the increasing utilization of DC for severely raised intracranial pressure. It usually presents after a period of weeks or months with a cluster of adverse neurological symptoms, most commonly with worsening of motor strength.

Case Description

An elderly gentleman with traumatic brain injury underwent DC. He later developed a sinking flap and unexplained agitation which responded to cranioplasty by returning to a state of calm. His cognitive function further improved over a period of 6 months. This is an unusual observation reported in this case.

Conclusion

Timely recognition of the cognitive complications of craniectomy that may respond to early cranioplasty promises to decrease the length of hospital stay and enhance rehabilitation in such patients.

Surgical Management of Neurotrauma: When to Intervene

Neurotrauma, often defined as abrupt damage to the brain or spinal cord, is a substantial cause of mortality and morbidity that is widely recognized. As such, establishing an effective course of action is crucial to the enhancement of neurotrauma guidelines and patient outcomes in healthcare worldwide. Following the onset of neurotraumatic injuries, time is perhaps the most critical facet in diminishing mortality and morbidity rates. Thus, procuring the airway should be of utmost priority in a patient to allow for optimal ventilation, with a shift in focus resorting to surgical interventions after the patient reaches a suitable care facility. In particular, ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) procedures have long been utilized to treat traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries to direct additional cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the lateral ventricles through a ventricular catheter attached to a valve that is further connected to a distal catheter. Decompressive cranio omie (DCs), cranioplasties, and intracranial pressure measurements (ICP) are also frequently performed in combination with VPS to manage intracranial hypertension and cerebral edema. Although the current surgical methods utilized in the treatment of neurotrauma prove to be highly efficacious in the prevention of adverse outcomes, emergent therapies are growing in popularity. Of interest, the Three Pillars Expansive Craniotomy, cisternostomy, and external lumbar drainages are cutting-edge procedures with promising results that can potentially usher change in the neurosurgical industry but require additional examination.

Escalation therapy in severe traumatic brain injury: how long is intracranial pressure monitoring necessary?

Traumatic brain injury frequently causes an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP) that could lead to reduction of cerebral perfusion pressure and cause brain ischemia. Invasive ICP monitoring is recommended by international guidelines, in order to reduce the incidence of secondary brain injury; although rare, the complications related to ICP probes could be dependent on the duration of monitoring. The aim of this manuscript is to clarify the appropriate timing for removal and management of invasive ICP monitoring, in order to reduce the risk of related complications and guarantee adequate cerebral autoregulatory control. There is no universal consensus concerning the duration of invasive ICP monitoring and its related complications, although the pertinent literature seems to show that the longer is the monitoring maintenance, the higher is the risk of technical issues. Besides, upon 72 h of normal ICP values or less than 72 h if the first computed tomography scan is normal (none or minimal signs of injury) and the neurological exam is available (allowing to observe variations and possible occurrence of new-onset pathological response), the removal of invasive ICP monitoring can be justified. The availability of non-invasive monitoring systems should be considered to follow up patients' clinical course after invasive ICP probe removal or for substituting the invasive monitoring in case of contraindication to its placement. Recently, optic nerve sheath diameter and straight sinus systolic flow velocity evaluation through ultrasound methods showed a good correlation with ICP values, demonstrating their potential role in place of invasive monitoring or in the early weaning phase from the invasive ICP monitoring.

A novel prefabricated patient-specific titanium cranioplasty: reconsideration from a traditional approach

OBJECTIVE

Patient-specific implants (PSI) for cranioplasty are expensive, and cost remains the limiting factor in low- to middle-income countries. The authors describe a novel, reproducible and cost-effective method of designing prefabricated titanium PSI cranioplasty.

METHODS

Ten patients from June 2018 to December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. A three-dimensional stereolithography model was made on a custom-built 3D printer with variable layer heights to produce efficient and accurate details. A certain amount of defect in the temporal region was left uncovered to avoid complications related to temporalis muscle dissection. The stereolithography model with a cranial defect was reconstructed with modelling wax. The wax model was scanned with a blue light visible scanner. The digital data was transferred to the milling machine (Jayon Surgical®, Kerala, India), where a 1-mm-thick sheet of titanium was milled according to the specifications. RFCC scoring system was used for assessing cosmetic outcome.

RESULTS

The mean duration of the surgery was 56.50 min, SD = 14.916 min (range 45-75 min). In 9/10 patients, the RFCC score was 4 points. No other complications were found at a minimum follow-up of 18 months in all patients. The cost per patient was approximately 30,000 INR or 400 US dollars. The average time required for us to get the PSI ready for surgery was about 15 days.

CONCLUSION

The authors demonstrate a novel, cost-effective and reproducible method of PSI using titanium for cranioplasty.

Escalate and De-Escalate Therapies for Intracranial Pressure Control in Traumatic Brain Injury

Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is frequently associated with an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP), followed by cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) reduction. Invasive monitoring of ICP is recommended to guide a step-by-step “staircase approach” which aims to normalize ICP values and reduce the risks of secondary damage. However, if such monitoring is not available clinical examination and radiological criteria should be used. A major concern is how to taper the therapies employed for ICP control. The aim of this manuscript is to review the criteria for escalating and withdrawing therapies in TBI patients. Each step of the staircase approach carries a risk of adverse effects related to the duration of treatment. Tapering of barbiturates should start once ICP control has been achieved for at least 24 h, although a period of 2–12 days is often required. Administration of hyperosmolar fluids should be avoided if ICP is normal. Sedation should be reduced after at least 24 h of controlled ICP to allow neurological examination. Removal of invasive ICP monitoring is suggested after 72 h of normal ICP. For patients who have undergone surgical decompression, cranioplasty represents the final step, and an earlier cranioplasty (15–90 days after decompression) seems to reduce the rate of infection, seizures, and hydrocephalus.

Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first-line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second-line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials (590 participants). One single-site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started. Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I2 = 38%; moderate-quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision-making. First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 86%; low-quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Second, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' evaluated on a non-traditional dichotomized GOS-Extended scale (GOS-E), that is, grouping the category 'upper severe disability' into the 'good outcome' grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I2 value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants). Third, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS-E cutoff into 'favorable' versus 'unfavorable' results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low-quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I2 = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD -4.66 mmHg, 95% CI -6.86 to -2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled. Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment-related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low-quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long-term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.