Towards a core outcome set for cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury and stroke 'A systematic review of reported outcomes'

Background

There is wide-ranging published literature around cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke, but the heterogeneity of outcomes limits the ability for meta-analysis. Consensus on appropriate outcome measures has not been reached, and given the clinical and research interest, a core outcome set (COS) would be beneficial.

Objectives

To collate outcomes currently reported across the cranioplasty literature which will subsequently be used in developing a cranioplasty COS.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All full-text English studies with more than ten patients (prospective) or more than 20 patients (retrospective) published after 1990 examining outcomes in CP were eligible for inclusion.

Results

The review included 205 studies from which 202 verbatim outcomes were extracted, grouped into 52 domains, and categorised into one or more of the OMERACT 2.0 framework core area(s). The total numbers of studies that reported outcomes in the core areas are 192 (94%) pathophysiological manifestations/ 114 (56%) resource use/economic impact/ 94 (46%) life impact/mortality 20 (10%). In addition, there are 61 outcome measures used in the 205 studies across all domains.

Conclusion

This study shows considerable heterogeneity in the types of outcomes used across the cranioplasty literature, demonstrating the importance and necessity of developing a COS to help standardise reporting across the literature.

Cranioplasty: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an operation where a large section of the skull is removed to accommodate brain swelling. Patients who survive will usually require subsequent reconstruction of the skull using either their own bone or an artificial prosthesis, known as cranioplasty. Cranioplasty restores skull integrity but can also improve neurological function. Standard care following DC consists of the performance of cranioplasty several months later as historically, there was a concern that earlier cranioplasty may increase the risk of infection. However, recent systematic reviews have challenged this and have demonstrated that an early cranioplasty (within three months after DC) may enhance neurological recovery. However, patients are often transferred to a rehabilitation unit following their acute index admission and before their cranioplasty. A better understanding of the pathophysiological effects of cranioplasty and the relationship of timing and complications would enable more focused patient tailored rehabilitation programs, thus maximizing the benefit following cranioplasty. This may maximise recovery potential, possibly resulting in improved functional and cognitive gains, enhancement of quality of life and potentially reducing longer-term care needs. This narrative review aims to update multi-disciplinary team regarding cranioplasty, including its history, pathophysiological consequences on recovery, complications, and important clinical considerations both in the acute and rehabilitation settings.

Qualitative research methods in neurosurgery: an unexplored avenue

OBJECTIVE

Explore the value and potential of qualitative research to neurosurgery and provide insight and understanding to this underused methodology.

BACKGROUND

The definition of qualitative research is critically discussed and the heterogeneity within this field of inquiry explored. The value of qualitative research to the field of neurosurgery is articulated through its contribution to understanding complex clinical problems.

DISCUSSION

To resolve some of the misunderstanding of qualitative research, this paper discusses research design choices. We explore approaches that use qualitative techniques but are not, necessarily, situated within a qualitative paradigm in addition to how qualitative research philosophy aids researchers to conduct interpretive inquiry that can reveal more than simply what was said by participants. Common research designs associated with qualitative inquiry are introduced, and how complex analysis may contribute more in-depth insights is explained. Approaches to quality are discussed briefly to support improvements in qualitative methods and qualitative manuscripts. Finally, we consider the future of qualitative research in neurosurgery, and suggest how to move forward in the qualitative neurosurgical evidence base.

CONCLUSION

There is enormous potential for qualitative research to contribute to the advancement of person-centred care within neurosurgery. There are signs that more qualitative research is being conducted and that neurosurgical journals are increasingly open to this methodology. While studies that do not engage fully within the qualitative paradigm can make important contributions to the evidence base, due regard should be given to immersive inquiry within qualitative paradigms to allow complex, in-depth, investigations of the human experience.