Role of Post-Decompressive Hydrocephalus in Patients with Malignant Cerebral Infarction

Cranioplasty Following Decompressive Craniectomy

Cranioplasty (CP) after decompressive craniectomy (DC) for trauma is a neurosurgical procedure that aims to restore esthesis, improve cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics, and provide cerebral protection. In turn, this can facilitate neurological rehabilitation and potentially enhance neurological recovery. However, CP can be associated with significant morbidity. Multiple aspects of CP must be considered to optimize its outcomes. Those aspects range from the intricacies of the surgical dissection/reconstruction during the procedure of CP, the types of materials used for the reconstruction, as well as the timing of the CP in relation to the DC. This article is a narrative mini-review that discusses the current evidence base and suggests that no consensus has been reached about several issues, such as an agreement on the best material for use in CP, the appropriate timing of CP after DC, and the optimal management of hydrocephalus in patients who need cranial reconstruction. Moreover, the protocol-driven standards of care for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients in high-resource settings are virtually out of reach for low-income countries, including those pertaining to CP. Thus, there is a need to design appropriate prospective studies to provide context-specific solid recommendations regarding this topic.

The Conundrum of Ventricular Dilatations Following Decompressive Craniectomy: Is Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt, The Only Panacea?

Introduction:

Ventriculomegaly and hydrocephalus (HCP) are sometimes a bewildering sequela of decompressive craniectomy (DC). The distinguishing criteria between both are less well defined. Majority of the studies quoted in the literature have defined HCP radiologically, rather than considering the clinical status of the patient. Accordingly, these patients have been treated with permanent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion procedures. We hypothesize that asymptomatic ventriculomegaly following DC should undergo aspiration with cranioplasty and be followed up regularly.

Materials and Methods:

All patients with post-DC who were scheduled for cranioplasty and satisfied the radiological criteria for HCP were included. These patients were categorized into two groups. Group 1 included ventriculomegaly with clinical signs attributable to HCP and Group 2 constituted ventriculomegaly but no clinical signs attributable to HCP. All patients in Group 1 underwent ventriculoperitoneal shunt followed by cranioplasty, whereas all patients in Group 2 underwent cranioplasty along with simultaneous ventriculostomy and temporary aspiration of the lateral ventricle. All patients were regularly followed as the outpatient basis.

Results:

There were 21 patients who developed ventriculomegaly following DC. There were 10 patients in Group 1 and 11 patients in Group 2. The average duration of follow-up was from 6 months to 2 years. Two patients in the shunt group - (group 1) had over drainage and required revision. One patient in aspiration group - (group 2) required permanent CSF diversion.

Conclusions:

Cranioplasty with aspiration is a viable option in selected group of patients in whom there is ventriculomegaly but no signs or symptoms attributable to HCP.