ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Neuromonitoring in the Decompressed Brain: Rethinking Physiology, Monitoring, and Thresholds After Decompressive Craniectomy.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a life-saving intervention for refractory intracranial hypertension across traumatic, ischemic, and hemorrhagic etiologies. While its immediate hemodynamic benefits are well established, DC fundamentally disrupts intracranial physiology by abolishing the closed-box condition of the cranial vault, thereby altering the interpretation of all monitored parameters. Neuromonitoring (NM) after DC remains a largely unaddressed domain in current consensus statements and evidence-based guidelines. This viewpoint synthesizes available evidence to address five critical clinical questions: the pathophysiological changes induced by DC; the rationale for continued invasive monitoring; the optimal sensor placement site; the contribution of noninvasive monitoring modalities; and whether conventional ICP and CPP thresholds remain applicable in the decompressed brain. Observational data indicate that intracranial hypertension persists or recurs in 36-76% of patients post-DC, underscoring the continued value of monitoring. Emerging evidence challenges the universal applicability of standard ICP thresholds, with post-DC data suggesting clinically relevant outcomes at substantially lower values. These findings highlight a fundamental gap in the field and underscore the urgent need for prospective, standardized research in the decompressed brain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42786383What 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.