ArticleCureus2022
Tissue Healing in Hemicraniectomy.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scalp incision technique for decompressive hemicraniectomy: comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the reverse question mark versus alternative retroauricular and Kempe incision techniques.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Preparation of Novel Marine Enterococcus faecium MSD8 Exopolysaccharide Ointment and In Vivo Evaluation of Its Impact on Cutaneous Wound Healing in Male Albino Rats.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Article
- Article
- The Question Mark Question: Wound Healing after Hemicraniectomy.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) is a last-resort treatment for refractory intracranial hypertension. Perioperative morbidity is associated with high risks of wound healing disturbances (WHD). Recently, a retromastoidal frontoparietooccipital (RMF) incision type was performed to avoid healing disturbance due to enhanced tissue flap perfusion compared to the classical reverse "question mark" ("Dandy flap") incision. The goal of this study was to analyze the details of tissue healing problems in DHC. Materials and methods A total of 60 patients who underwent DHC were retrospectively analyzed. In 30 patients the "Dandy flap" incision (group A) and in 30 patients the RMF incision (group B) was made. Since no evidence-based data for the incision type that favors better wound healing exists, the form of incision was left at the surgeon´s discretion. Documentation of the patients was screened for the incidence of WHD: wound necrosis, dehiscence, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage. Patient age, the time interval from surgery until the appearance of WHD, the length of surgeries in minutes, and the indications of the DHC were analyzed. A Chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between the incision type and the appearance of WHD with the statistical significance level set at p<0.05. The mean age of the patients, the mean time interval from surgery until the occurrence of WHD, and the mean length of the surgery between the two groups were compared using an independent sample t-test with the statistical significance level set at p<0.05. Results The most common indication for DHC in both groups was malignant MCA infarction (n=20, 66.6% for group A and n=16, 53.3% for group B). CSF leakage was 20% of the most frequent WHD in each group. Wound necrosis was observed only in group A. Although group B showed 13.3% fewer WHD than group A, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in the time range between surgery and the occurrence of WHD between the two groups. The length of surgery in group B was significantly shorter than in group A (120.2 mins vs. 103.7 mins). Conclusion A noticeable trend for reduced WHD was observed in the patient group using the RMF incision type although the difference was not statistically significant. We praise that the RMF incision allows an optimized skin-flap vascularization and, thereby, facilitates better wound healing. We were able to show a statistically shorter length of surgery with the RMF incision in contrast to the classic "Dandy flap" incision. Larger multicenter studies should be implemented to analyze and address the major advantages and pitfalls of the routinely applied incision techniques.
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.