SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study in comparing decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy in patients with acute subdural hematoma.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical timing and mortality in acute traumatic subdural hematoma: is the four-hour threshold confounded by injury severity?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Beyond the bone flap: integrating biomarkers, imaging, and emerging technologies in the surgical continuum of acute subdural hematoma (ASDH).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- From Mechanisms to Meaningful Recovery: Integrating Biology, Technology, and Ethics in Traumatic Brain Injury Care.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Case Report: Life-threatening acute subdural hematoma associated with human parvovirus B19 infection in a young adult.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Atypical acute subdural hematoma caused by skull base fracture lacerating the middle meningeal artery: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Indications and scientific support for supratentorial unilateral decompressive craniectomy for different subgroups of patients: A scoping review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Influence of Age and Sex on Post-Craniotomy Headache.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Assessment of cerebrovascular alterations induced by inflammatory response and oxidative-nitrative stress after traumatic intracranial hypertension and a potential mitigation strategy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Hypothermia in Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Risk stratification and predictive modeling of postoperative delirium in chronic subdural hematoma.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are two controversial surgery methods which are traditionally used: craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of DC versus craniotomy for surgical management in patients with acute subdural hemorrhage (SDH) following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase up to July 30, 2023, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Relevant articles were reviewed, with a focus on studies comparing decompressive craniectomy to craniotomy techniques in patients with SDH following TBI. Ten studies in 2401 patients were reviewed. A total of 1170 patients had a craniotomy, and 1231 had decompressive craniectomy. The mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups (OR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.42-0.5] P-value: 0.07). The rate of revision surgery was insignificantly different between the two groups (OR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.49-0.69] P-value: 0.08). No significant difference was found between craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy regarding unilateral mydriasis (OR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.35-0.57] P-value < 0.001). However, the craniotomy group had significantly lower rates of non-pupil reactivity (OR: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.17-0.41] P-value < 0.001) and bilateral mydriasis (OR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.5-0.66] P-value: 0.04). There was also no significant difference in extracranial injury between the two groups, although the odds ratio of significant extracranial injury was lower in the craniotomy group (OR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45-0.7] P-value: 0.22). Our findings showed that non-pupil and bilateral-pupil reactivity were significantly more present in decompressive craniectomy. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding mortality rate, extracranial injury, revision surgery, and one-pupil reactivity.
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.