Literature DB >> 29148904

Randomized controlled study comparing 2 surgical techniques for decompressive craniectomy: with watertight duraplasty and without watertight duraplasty.

Eduardo Vieira, Thiago C Guimarães, Igor V Faquini, Jose L Silva, Tammy Saboia, Rodrigo V C L Andrade, Thaís L Gemir, Valesca C Neri, Nivaldo S Almeida, Hildo R C Azevedo-Filho.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Decompressive 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).
METHODS: The 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.
RESULTS: Fifty-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.
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid-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).

Entities:  

Keywords:  DC = decompressive craniectomy; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; GOS = Glasgow Outcome Scale; TBI = traumatic brain injury; brain edema; decompressive craniectomy; duraplasty; traumatic brain injury

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29148904     DOI: 10.3171/2017.4.JNS152954

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  7 in total

1.  Absorbable Artificial Dura Versus Nonabsorbable Artificial Dura in Decompressive Craniectomy for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Two Centers.

Authors:  Zhong-Ding Zhang; Li-Yan Zhao; Yi-Ru Liu; Jing-Yu Zhang; Shang-Hui Xie; Yan-Qi Lin; Zhuo-Ning Tang; Huang-Yi Fang; Yue Yang; Shi-Ze Li; Jian-Xi Liu; Han-Song Sheng
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-07-01

2.  Decompressive hemicraniectomy after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage-justifiable in light of long-term outcome?

Authors:  Michael Veldeman; Miriam Weiss; Lorina Daleiden; Walid Albanna; Henna Schulze-Steinen; Omid Nikoubashman; Hans Clusmann; Anke Hoellig; Gerrit Alexander Schubert
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 2.816

3.  Rapid closure technique in suboccipital decompression.

Authors:  Martin Vychopen; Alexis Hadjiathanasiou; Simon Brandecker; Valeri Borger; Patrick Schuss; Hartmut Vatter; Erdem Güresir
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 4.  Complications of Decompressive Craniectomy.

Authors:  M S Gopalakrishnan; Nagesh C Shanbhag; Dhaval P Shukla; Subhas K Konar; Dhananjaya I Bhat; B Indira Devi
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.003

5.  How I do it-the posterior question mark incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy.

Authors:  Michael Veldeman; Mathias Geiger; Hans Clusmann
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  Surgical nuances and placement of subgaleal drains for supratentorial procedures-a prospective analysis of efficacy and outcome in 150 craniotomies.

Authors:  Gerrit Alexander Schubert; Walid Albanna; Hussam Aldin Hamou; Konstantin Kotliar; Sonny Kian Tan; Christel Weiß; Blume Christian; Hans Clusmann
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 2.216

7.  Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury: An Institutional Experience of 131 Cases in Two Years.

Authors:  Ana Cristina Veiga Silva; Matheus Araújo de Oliveira Farias; Luiz Severo Bem; Marcelo Moraes Valença; Hildo Rocha Cirne de Azevedo Filho
Journal:  Neurotrauma Rep       Date:  2020-10-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.