ArticleMedicine international
Efficacy of decompressive craniectomy: A retrospective case series study with 321 patients and an update on controversies.
Article in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is considered a cornerstone in the management of refractory intracranial hypertension. For decades, DC was known as an occasionally lifesaving procedure; however, it was associated with numerous severe complications. The present study is a single-center retrospective case series study on with 321 patients who underwent DC between January, 2010 and December, 2020. All patients were divided into four groups as follows: Group A included patients who suffered from a space-occupying middle cerebral artery (MCA) ischemic event; group B included individuals who developed intracerebral hemorrhage; group C included patients admitted for traumatic brain injury; and group D included patients with other neurosurgical entities that underwent DC, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage, tumors, brain abscess and cerebral ventricular sinus thrombosis events. The present study enrolled a total of 321 patients who underwent DC. Group A included 52 out of the 321 (16.1%) patients, group B included 51 (15.8%) patients, group C included 164 (51.0%) patients, and group D included 54 (16.8%) patients. Of the 321 patients, 235 (73.2%) were males, and the median age was 53.7 years. Multivariate analysis revealed that only the group A parameter was an independent factor associated with a Glasgow outcome scale score >2 during follow-up (P<0.05). On the whole, the results of the present study suggest that among patients who underwent DC with different neurological entities, those who had experienced MCA events had more favorable outcomes.
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.