ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2021
Clinical Significance of Decompressive Craniectomy Surface Area and Side.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive factors influencing outcome of early cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: a outcome prediction model study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- Unilateral supratentorial decompressive craniectomy: stay away from the midline!European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- Analysis of the timing and the usage of drains following cranioplasty on outcomes and the incidence of bone resorption.Surgical neurology international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDecompressive craniectomy (DC) can partially remove the unyielding skull vault and make affordable space for the expansion of swelling brain contents. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome according to DC surface area (DC area) and side.
methodsA total of 324 patients underwent different surgical methods (unilateral DC, 212 cases and bilateral DC, 112 cases) were included in this retrospective analysis. Their mean age was 53.4±16.6 years (median, 54 years). Neurological outcome (Glasgow outcome scale), ventricular intracranial pressure (ICP), and midline shift change (preoperative minus postoperative) were compared according to surgical methods and total DC area, DC surface removal rate (DC%) and side.
resultsDC surgery was effective for ICP decrease (32.3±16.7 mmHg vs. 19.2±13.4 mmHg, p<0.001) and midline shift change (12.5±7.6 mm vs. 7.8±6.9 mm, p<0.001). The bilateral DC group showed larger total DC area (125.1±27.8 cm2 for unilateral vs. 198.2±43.0 cm2 for bilateral, p<0.001). Clinical outcomes were nonsignificant according to surgical side (favorable outcome, p=0.173 and mortality, p=0.470), significantly better when total DC area was over 160 cm2 and DC% was 46% (p=0.020 and p=0.037, respectively).
conclusionDC surgery is effective in decrease the elevated ICP, decrease the midline shift and improve the clinical outcome in massive brain swelling patient. Total DC area and removal rate was larger in bilateral DC than unilateral DC but clinical outcome was not influenced by DC side. DC area more than 160 cm2 and DC surface removal rate more than 46% were more important than DC side.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.