ArticleSurgical neurology international2023
Post-traumatic decompressive craniectomy: Prognostic factors and long-term follow-up.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcomes and hemorrhagic or thromboembolic risks in decompressive craniectomy for patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Clinical and Biochemical Predictors of 30-Day Mortality After Decompressive Craniectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is still controversial in neurosurgery. According to the most recent trials, DC seems to increase survival in case of refractory intracranial pressure. On the other hand, the risk of postsurgical poor outcomes remain high. The present study aimed to evaluate a series of preoperative factors potentially impacting on long-term follow-up of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients treated with DC. Methods: We analyzed the first follow-up year of a series of 75 TBI patients treated with DC at our department in five years (2015-2019). Demographic, clinical, and radiological parameters were retrospectively collected from clinical records. Blood examinations were analyzed to calculate the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Disability rating scale (DRS) was used to classify patients' outcomes (good outcome [G.O.] if DRS ≤11 and poor outcome [P.O.] if DRS ≥12) at 6 and 12 months. Results: At six months follow-up, 25 out of 75 patients had DRS ≤11, while at 12 months, 30 out of 75 patients were included in the G.O. group . Admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) >8 was significantly associated with six months G.O. Increased NLR values and the interval between DC and cranioplasty >3 months were significantly correlated to a P.O. at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Conclusion: Since DC still represents a controversial therapeutic strategy, selecting parameters to help stratify TBI patients' potential outcomes is paramount. GCS at admission, the interval between DC and cranioplasty, and preoperative NLR values seem to correlate with the long-term outcome.
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.