Comparison of Outcomes of Hinge Craniotomy Versus Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Malignant Intracranial Hypertension: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.

Q3 Medicine Korean Journal of Neurotrauma Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.13004/kjnt.2024.20.e37
Mohammad Mostafa Harifi, Hesam Ghadirian, Koroush Karimi-Yarandi, Mohsen Nouri, Seyedsina Ahmadiabhari, Abolghasem Mortazavi
{"title":"Comparison of Outcomes of Hinge Craniotomy Versus Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Malignant Intracranial Hypertension: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.","authors":"Mohammad Mostafa Harifi, Hesam Ghadirian, Koroush Karimi-Yarandi, Mohsen Nouri, Seyedsina Ahmadiabhari, Abolghasem Mortazavi","doi":"10.13004/kjnt.2024.20.e37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes in patients with malignant intracranial hypertension undergoing either decompressive craniectomy (DC) or hinge craniotomy (HC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective RCT, 38 patients diagnosed with malignant intracranial hypertension due to ischemic infarction, traumatic brain injury, or non-lesional spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, who required cranial decompression, were randomly allocated to the DC and HC groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The need for reoperation, particularly cranioplasty, in the DC group was significantly different from that in the HC group. The percentage of brain expansion was higher in the DC group versus the HC group; however, the difference was not significant. There was no significant intergroup difference in the functional outcome according to the modified Rankin Scale or the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Additionally, no significant intergroup differences were observed in the rates of in-hospital complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The HC and DC groups did not significantly differ in the rate of hospital complications such as infection, need for reoperation owing to the lack of intracranial pressure control, wound healing problems, or bone infection. Our results suggest that by performing HC, the probability of the need for major surgery (cranioplasty) is reduced, thereby removing financial burden from the patient and the health system.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Identifier: IRCT20180515039678N1.</p>","PeriodicalId":36879,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma","volume":"20 4","pages":"262-275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11711021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13004/kjnt.2024.20.e37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes in patients with malignant intracranial hypertension undergoing either decompressive craniectomy (DC) or hinge craniotomy (HC).

Methods: In this prospective RCT, 38 patients diagnosed with malignant intracranial hypertension due to ischemic infarction, traumatic brain injury, or non-lesional spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, who required cranial decompression, were randomly allocated to the DC and HC groups.

Results: The need for reoperation, particularly cranioplasty, in the DC group was significantly different from that in the HC group. The percentage of brain expansion was higher in the DC group versus the HC group; however, the difference was not significant. There was no significant intergroup difference in the functional outcome according to the modified Rankin Scale or the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Additionally, no significant intergroup differences were observed in the rates of in-hospital complications.

Conclusion: The HC and DC groups did not significantly differ in the rate of hospital complications such as infection, need for reoperation owing to the lack of intracranial pressure control, wound healing problems, or bone infection. Our results suggest that by performing HC, the probability of the need for major surgery (cranioplasty) is reduced, thereby removing financial burden from the patient and the health system.

Trial registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Identifier: IRCT20180515039678N1.

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
一项前瞻性、随机对照研究:铰链开颅术与减压开颅术治疗恶性颅内高压的疗效比较。
目的:本随机对照试验(RCT)旨在比较行减压开颅术(DC)或铰链开颅术(HC)的恶性颅内高压患者的短期、中期和长期预后。方法:本前瞻性随机对照试验将38例诊断为缺血性梗死、外伤性脑损伤或非病变性自发性脑出血所致的恶性颅内高压患者随机分为DC组和HC组。结果:DC组与HC组的再手术需求,尤其是颅骨成形术需求有显著差异。DC组脑扩张率高于HC组;然而,差异并不显著。根据改进的Rankin量表或格拉斯哥结果量表,功能结局在组间无显著差异。此外,住院并发症发生率在组间无显著差异。结论:HC组与DC组在医院并发症发生率,如感染、因颅内压控制不足而需要再次手术、伤口愈合问题、骨感染等方面无显著差异。我们的研究结果表明,通过实施HC,需要进行大手术(颅骨成形术)的可能性降低,从而消除了患者和卫生系统的经济负担。试验注册:伊朗临床试验注册中心标识符:IRCT20180515039678N1。
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Additional Surgical Decompression on Functional Outcome in Pyogenic Spinal Epidural Abscess With No Neurological Deficit. Induced Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in Spinal Cord Injury: Present Status and Next Steps. Surgical and Neurointensive Management for Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Review. Using Artificial Intelligence in the Comprehensive Management of Spinal Cord Injury. Successful Treatment of Growing Skull Fracture That Developed Only 3 Weeks After Injury: A Case Report.
×
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