Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2021; 16(02): 288-293
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_392_20
Original Article

Outcome of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: An institutional-based analysis from Nepal

Damber Shah
Department of Neurosciences, Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Lalitpur
,
Prakash Paudel
Department of Neurosciences, Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Lalitpur
,
Sumit Joshi
Department of Neurosciences, Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Lalitpur
,
Prasanna Karki
Department of Neurosciences, Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Lalitpur
,
Gopal Sharma
Department of Neurosciences, Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Lalitpur
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Objective: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is one of the commonly used treatment modalities for refractory intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury. The objective of this study is to assess the functional outcome following DC in closed traumatic brain injury based on Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study conducted at Nepal Mediciti Hospital, Nepal, from September 2017 to October 2019. Data of the patients who had undergone DC for closed traumatic brain injury were reviewed from medical record files. Patients who had DC for nontraumatic causes were excluded from the study. Functional outcome was assessed using GOS at 3 months of follow-up. Results: Of the 52 decompressive craniectomies, 46 were included in the study. The majority was male (71.7%). The mean age and the mean Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score at presentation were 41.87 (standard deviation [SD] ± 15.29) and 7.59 (SD ± 2.97), respectively. The most common mode of injury was road traffic accident (76.1%). 60.9% had GCS score ≤8 while 39.1% had >8 GCS on admission. 34.8% had both the pupils reactive while 58.7% were anisocoric. Majority had Marshall IV and above grade of injury (67.4%). Sixteen (34.8%) had inhospital mortality. Favorable outcome was seen in 39.1%. GCS score >8 at presentation (72.2%, P < 0.001), bilaterally intact pupillary reflexes (75%, P < 0.001), Marshall grade injury ≤3 on computed tomography scan (90%, P < 0.001), and age <50 years (50%, P = 0.039) were significantly associated with favorable outcome. Procedure-related complications were seen in 36.9%. Conclusion: Favorable outcome was seen in 39.1%. Age <50 years, higher GCS score at presentation (>8), intact pupillary reflexes, and lower Marshall grade injuries were associated with favorable outcome. We recommend a larger prospective study to assess the long-term functional outcome after DC using extended GOS.

Key-words:

Decompressive craniectomy - Glasgow Outcome Scale - outcome - traumatic brain injury

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 10 August 2020

Accepted: 16 March 2021

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2021. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Marshall LF. Head injury: Recent past, present, and future. Neurosurgery 2000;47:546-61.
  • 2 Brown DA, Wijdicks EF. Decompressive craniectomy in acute brain injury. Handb Clin Neurol 2017;140:299-318.
  • 3 Adams H, Kolias AG, Hutchinson PJ. The role of surgical intervention in traumatic brain injury. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2016;27:519-28.
  • 4 Spiller WG, Frazier CH. Palliative operations in the treatment of tumour in the brain, based on the observation of fourteen cases. JAMA 1906;47:679-83.
  • 5 Coplin WM, Cullen NK, Policherla PN, Vinas FC, Wilseck JM, Zafonte RD, et al. Safety and feasibility of craniectomy with duraplasty as the initial surgical intervention for severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 2001;50:1050-9.
  • 6 Jaeger M, Soehle M, Meixensberger J. Effects of decompressive craniectomy on brain tissue oxygen in patients with intracranial hypertension. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:513-5.
  • 7 Cooper DJ, Rosenfeld JV, Murray L, Arabi YM, Davies AR, D'Urso P, et al. Decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1493-502.
  • 8 Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, Corteen EA, Czosnyka M, Timothy J, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1119-30.
  • 9 Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1975;1:480-4.
  • 10 Aarabi B, Hesdorffer DC, Ahn ES, Aresco C, Scalea TM, Eisenberg HM. Outcome following decompressive craniectomy for malignant swelling due to severe head injury. J Neurosurg 2006;104:469-79.
  • 11 Laghari AA, Bari ME, Waqas M, Ahmed SI, Nathani KR, Moazzam W. Outcome of decompressive craniectomy in traumatic closed head injury. Asian J Neurosurg 2018;13:1053-6.
  • 12 Choudhary NK, Bhargava R. Decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury: An industrial hospital study. Asian J Neurosurg 2018;13:314-8.
  • 13 Guerra WK, Gaab MR, Dietz H, Mueller JU, Piek J, Fritsch MJ. Surgical decompression for traumatic brain swelling: Indications and results. J Neurosurg 1999;90:187-96.
  • 14 Tian R, Liu W, Dong J, Zhang J, Xu L, Zhang B, et al. Prognostic predictors of early outcomes and discharge status of patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy after severe traumatic brain injury. World Neurosurg 2019;126:e101-8.
  • 15 Schneider GH, Bardt T, Lanksch WR, Unterberg A. Decompressive craniectomy following traumatic brain injury: ICP, CPP and neurological outcome. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;81:77-9.
  • 16 Meier U, Lemcke J, Reyer T, Gräwe A. Decompressive craniectomy for severe head injury in patients with major extracranial injuries. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2006;96:373-6.
  • 17 van Veen E, Aerdts S, van den Brink W. Decompressive (hemi) craniectomy for refractory intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury. Crit Care 2006;10 Suppl 1:458.
  • 18 Yang XJ, Hong GL, Su SB, Yang SY. Complications induced by decompressive craniectomies after traumatic brain injury. Chin J Traumatol 2003;6:99-103.
  • 19 Yang XF, Wen L, Shen F, Li G, Lou R, Liu WG, et al. Surgical complications secondary to decompressive craniectomy in patients with a head injury: A series of 108 consecutive cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2008;150:1241-7.
  • 20 Kolias AG, Adams H, Timofeev I, Czosnyka M, Corteen EA, Pickard JD, et al. Decompressive craniectomy following traumatic brain injury: Developing the evidence base. Br J Neurosurg 2016;30:246-50.
  • 21 Kolias AG, Viaroli E, Rubiano AM, Adams H, Khan T, Gupta D, et al. The current status of decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury. Curr Trauma Rep 2018;4:326-32.
  • 22 Cherian I, Yi G, Munakomi S. Cisternostomy: Replacing the age old decompressive hemicraniectomy? Asian J Neurosurg 2013;8:132-8.
  • 23 Iliff JJ, Wang M, Liao Y, Plogg BA, Peng W, Gundersen GA, et al. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid β. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:147ra111.
  • 24 Cherian I, Bernardo A, Grasso G. Cisternostomy for traumatic brain injury: Pathophysiologic mechanisms and surgical technical notes. World Neurosurg 2016;89:51-7.