ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparison of brain volume increase in patients with intracranial hypertension after decompressive craniectomy and expansion craniotomy.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial hypertension is a critical condition often resulting from traumatic brain injury or malignant middle cerebral artery ischemia, necessitating surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. This study compares the efficacy of decompressive craniectomy (DC) and expansion craniotomy (EC) in managing cerebral edema. Sixty-three patients, 52 undergoing DC and 11 undergoing EC, were evaluated for changes in brain volume, midline shift, and other key parameters using pre- and post-operative CT scans. Results indicated that brain volume increased significantly more in the EC group (100 ± 51 cm³) compared to the DC group (72 ± 51 cm³, p < 0.05). Both techniques effectively reduced midline displacement, but EC showed a superior capacity for brain expansion. The findings suggest that EC, which raises the cranial operculum to reduce soft tissue tension and provide hemostatic effects, may offer advantages over DC by allowing greater decompression and reducing the risk of complications such as epidural hematomas. These results support the potential of EC as a promising alternative to DC for treating intracranial hypertension. Future research should investigate long-term outcomes to further validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40113631What 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.