Is basal cisternostomy in traumatic brain injury a need of hour or white elephant – A randomized trial to answer

Sarita Kumari, Manish Jaiswal, B. Ojha
{"title":"Is basal cisternostomy in traumatic brain injury a need of hour or white elephant – A randomized trial to answer","authors":"Sarita Kumari, Manish Jaiswal, B. Ojha","doi":"10.25259/sni_825_2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nBasal cisternostomy (BC) recently emerged as an adjuvant/alternative procedure to decompressive craniectomy (DC) in traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) with its potential to effectively reduce both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain edema. However, its role in TBI is not yet established in the true sense and with clarity. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of adjuvant BC on ICP, mortality, and clinicoradiological outcome.\n\n\n\nA single-center randomized control trial was conducted. Fifty patients were assigned to each DC-group and DC+BC-group. Randomization was done using the sealed envelope method. Both groups were followed in the postoperative period to compare the impact of surgery on ICP, radiological changes, and clinical outcome (mortality, days on ventilator/in intensive care unit (ICU), and Glasgow outcome scale-extended (GOS-E) at 12 weeks).\n\n\n\nBoth groups were comparable in terms of preoperative clinicoradiological characteristics. On postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, mean ICP was significantly low in the DC+BC-group (P < 0.0001). The decline in ICP in the DC+BC-group was significant in both moderate and severe TBI patients. In comparison, DC+BC-group has a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation/ICU stay and significantly better GOS-E score at 12 weeks (P < 0.0001*). The mortality rate was less in the DC+BC-group (48%) as compared to the DC-group (64%). Among radiological features, mean midline shift and mean outward brain herniation were significantly less in the DC+BC group. Bone-flap replacement was possible in ten patients of DC+BC-group at the time of primary surgery.\n\n\n\nResults of our study indicated that BC is beneficial in reducing both ICP and brain edema, which translates into favorable clinicoradiological outcomes.\n","PeriodicalId":38981,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Neurology International","volume":" 75","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Neurology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/sni_825_2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Basal cisternostomy (BC) recently emerged as an adjuvant/alternative procedure to decompressive craniectomy (DC) in traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) with its potential to effectively reduce both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain edema. However, its role in TBI is not yet established in the true sense and with clarity. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of adjuvant BC on ICP, mortality, and clinicoradiological outcome. A single-center randomized control trial was conducted. Fifty patients were assigned to each DC-group and DC+BC-group. Randomization was done using the sealed envelope method. Both groups were followed in the postoperative period to compare the impact of surgery on ICP, radiological changes, and clinical outcome (mortality, days on ventilator/in intensive care unit (ICU), and Glasgow outcome scale-extended (GOS-E) at 12 weeks). Both groups were comparable in terms of preoperative clinicoradiological characteristics. On postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, mean ICP was significantly low in the DC+BC-group (P < 0.0001). The decline in ICP in the DC+BC-group was significant in both moderate and severe TBI patients. In comparison, DC+BC-group has a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation/ICU stay and significantly better GOS-E score at 12 weeks (P < 0.0001*). The mortality rate was less in the DC+BC-group (48%) as compared to the DC-group (64%). Among radiological features, mean midline shift and mean outward brain herniation were significantly less in the DC+BC group. Bone-flap replacement was possible in ten patients of DC+BC-group at the time of primary surgery. Results of our study indicated that BC is beneficial in reducing both ICP and brain edema, which translates into favorable clinicoradiological outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤性脑损伤中的基底贮水池造口术是当务之急还是大而无当 - 一项随机试验的答案
基底脑池造口术(BC)最近成为创伤性脑损伤(tbi)减压颅骨切除术(DC)的辅助/替代手术,具有有效降低颅内压(ICP)和脑水肿的潜力。然而,它在TBI中的作用尚未真正明确地确立。本研究的目的是评估辅助BC对颅内压、死亡率和临床放射学结果的影响。采用单中心随机对照试验。将50例患者分为DC组和DC+ bc组。随机化采用密封信封法。两组患者术后随访,比较手术对颅内压的影响、影像学变化和临床结果(死亡率、呼吸机/重症监护病房(ICU)天数和12周时格拉斯哥结局扩展量表(GOS-E))。两组在术前临床放射学特征方面具有可比性。在术后第1、2、3天,DC+ bc组的平均ICP明显较低(P < 0.0001)。在中度和重度TBI患者中,DC+ bc组的ICP下降都是显著的。相比之下,DC+ bc组机械通气/ICU住院时间更短,12周GOS-E评分明显更好(P < 0.0001*)。DC+ bc组的死亡率(48%)低于DC组(64%)。在影像学特征中,DC+BC组的平均中线移位和平均脑外疝明显减少。DC+ bc组10例患者在初次手术时可以进行骨瓣置换。我们的研究结果表明,BC有利于减少颅内压和脑水肿,这转化为良好的临床放射学结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊最新文献
Cauda equina syndrome due to posttraumatic syringomyelia in conus medullaris – A case report Patients with meningioma hemorrhage should undergo an autopsy if they die from it despite successful surgery Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach for resection of residual parasellar growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenoma in a patient with kissing internal carotid arteries: Technical nuances Microsurgery resection of giant cervicothoracic spinal ependymoma: Two-dimensional operative video Non-granulomatous meningoencephalitis with Balamuthia mandrillaris mimicking a tumor: First confirmed case from Pakistan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1