Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Vitali, M.; Marasco, S.;
Romenskaya, T.; Elia, A.; Longhitano,
Y.; Zanza, C.; Abenavoli, L.;
Scarpellini, E.; Bertuccio, A.;
Barbanera, A. Decompressive
Craniectomy in Severe Traumatic
Brain Injury: The Intensivist’s Point
of View. Diseases 2023,11, 22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
diseases11010022
Academic Editor: Maurizio Battino
Received: 27 September 2022
Revised: 3 January 2023
Accepted: 5 January 2023
Published: 30 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
diseases
Review
Decompressive Craniectomy in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury:
The Intensivist’s Point of View
Matteo Vitali 1, Stefano Marasco 1,2 , Tatsiana Romenskaya 3, Angela Elia 1,2, Yaroslava Longhitano 3,
Christian Zanza 3, *, Ludovico Abenavoli 4, Emidio Scarpellini 5,6 , Alessandro Bertuccio 1
and Andrea Barbanera 1
1Department of Neurosurgery, AON SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo H, 15121 Alessandria, Italy
2Department of Neurosurgery, IRCCS S. Matteo, Pavia University, 27100 Pavia, Italy
3Department of Integrated Research and Innovation Activities, Service of Translational Medicine,
AON SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo H, 15121 Alessandria, Italy
4Department of Health Sciences, University “Magna Græcia”, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
5Hepatology Outpatient Clinic and Internal Medicine Unit, “Madonna del Soccorso” General Hospital,
63074 San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy
6T.A.R.G.I.D., Gasthuisberg University Hospital, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
*Correspondence: christian.zanza@live.it; Tel.: +39-3343261277
Abstract:
Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a severe pathology with important so-
cial and economic concerns, decompressive craniectomy (DC) represents a life-saving surgical option
to treat elevated intracranial hypertension (ICP). The rationale underlying DC is to remove part of the
cranial bones and open the dura mater to create space, avoiding secondary parenchymal damage and
brain herniations. The scope of this narrative review is to summarize the most relevant literature and
to discuss main issues about indication, timing, surgical procedure, outcome, and complications in
adult patients involved in severe traumatic brain injury, underwent to the DC. The literature research
is made with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms on PubMed/MEDLINE from 2003 to 2022 and
we reviewed the most recent and relevant articles using the following keywords alone or matched
with each other: decompressive craniectomy; traumatic brain injury; intracranial hypertension; acute
subdural hematoma; cranioplasty; cerebral herniation, neuro-critical care, neuro-anesthesiology. The
pathogenesis of TBI involves both primary injuries that correlate directly to the external impact of the
brain and skull, and secondary injuries due to molecular, chemical, and inflammatory cascade induc-
ing further cerebral damage. The DC can be classified into primary, defined as bone flap removing
without its replacement for the treatment of intracerebral mass, and secondary, which indicates for
the treatment of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP), refractory to intensive medical management.
Briefly, the increased brain compliance following bone removal reflects on CBF and autoregulation
inducing an alteration in CSF dynamics and so, eventual complications. The risk of complications
is estimated around 40%. The main cause of mortality in DC patients is due to brain swelling. In
traumatic brain injury, primary or secondary decompressive craniectomy is a life-saving surgery, and
the right indication should be mandatory in multidisciplinary medical–surgical consultation.
Keywords:
decompressive craniectomy; traumatic brain injury; intracranial hypertension; acute
subdural hematoma; cranioplasty; cerebral herniation; neuro-critical care; neuro-anesthesiology
1. Introduction
Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a surgical technique developed over the centuries,
and Kocher described it in detail more than a century ago. The DC has still today an
essential role in the neurosurgical practice and represents a life-saving surgical option to
treat elevated intracranial hypertension (ICP) [
1
]. The underlying rationale is to remove
part of the cranial bones (“bone flap”), opening the dura mater to create space to avoid
Diseases 2023,11, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases11010022 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diseases
Diseases 2023,11, 22 2 of 10
secondary parenchymal damage and brain herniations, reducing ischemic complications
and improving cerebral blood flow, perfusion, and compliance.
The main indications for DC are Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Middle Cerebral Artery
(MCA) infarction, and Acute Subdural Hematoma (ASDH); additionally, other common
several pathologies (such as acute encephalitis, cerebral toxoplasmosis, subdural empyema)
causing intractable elevated ICP are suitable for DC [1–6].
Primary DC is defined as bone flap removing without its replacement for the treat-
ment of intracerebral mass, while secondary DC is indicated for the treatment of elevated
intracranial pressure (ICP), refractory to intensive medical management.
The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the most relevant literature and to
discuss the main issues about indication, timing, surgical procedure, outcome, and compli-
cations in adult patients involved in severe traumatic brain injury who underwent DC.
2. Methods
The literature search was performed on the PubMed/MEDLINE following a timeline
from 2003 to 2022 with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms alone or combined with
each other: decompressive craniectomy; traumatic brain injury; intracranial hypertension;
acute subdural hematoma; cranioplasty; cerebral herniation; neuro-critical care; and neuro-
anesthesiology were the MeSH terms researched, alone or.
Our research focused on the most recent and relevant articles, and reviewed overall
data about indications, timing, surgical technique, outcomes, and complications of DC and
cranioplasty, excluding pediatric cases. No restrictions have been placed on the language
and country of origin of the articles.
After careful selection, we considered about 43 articles, including two meta-analytic
studies and two systematic reviews, and an International Consensus Statement
(see Figure 1).
Diseases 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
Figure 1. Flowchart used for the searching literature.
3. Discussion
3.1. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a severe pathology due to a violent blow or
jolt to the head with altered state of consciousness associated with temporary or perma-
nent neurological deficits representing social and economic concerns. TBI is one of the first
causes of death and long-term disability and in Europe, the reported incidence of TBI
ranges between 83.3 and 849 per 100,000 population per year [7]. The mortality rate has a
wide range, accounting for from 9 to 28.10 per 100,000 population per year [7]. The highest
incidence of TBI is reported in the male population aged < 44 years old, and it is related
mainly to car crashes, falls, violence, sports-related, and home or work accidents [7].
3.2. Classification
On the basis of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the injury mechanism, TBI is classi-
fied as mild, moderate, and severe. Mild occurs in cases of alteration of alertness without
neurological deficit (GCS 13–15); Moderate, usually involving patients with alteration of
the consciousness with or without neurological deficits (GCS 9–12); Severe is defined in
cases of a comatose or unresponsive status (GCS 3–8).
3.3. Pathophysiology
The pathogenesis can be primary when it correlated directly to the external impact
of the brain and skull; secondary is when molecular, chemical, and inflammatory cascade
inducing further cerebral damage. The primary injuries include Epidural Hematoma,
Acute Subdural Hemorrhage, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Diffuse Axonal Injury, and
Skull Fractures, with possible involvement of cranial nerves [8].
Figure 1. Flowchart used for the searching literature.
Diseases 2023,11, 22 3 of 10
3. Discussion
3.1. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a severe pathology due to a violent blow or
jolt to the head with altered state of consciousness associated with temporary or permanent
neurological deficits representing social and economic concerns. TBI is one of the first
causes of death and long-term disability and in Europe, the reported incidence of TBI
ranges between 83.3 and 849 per 100,000 population per year [
7
]. The mortality rate has a
wide range, accounting for from 9 to 28.10 per 100,000 population per year [
7
]. The highest
incidence of TBI is reported in the male population aged < 44 years old, and it is related
mainly to car crashes, falls, violence, sports-related, and home or work accidents [7].
3.2. Classification
On the basis of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the injury mechanism, TBI is classified
as mild, moderate, and severe. Mild occurs in cases of alteration of alertness without
neurological deficit (GCS 13–15); Moderate, usually involving patients with alteration of
the consciousness with or without neurological deficits (GCS 9–12); Severe is defined in
cases of a comatose or unresponsive status (GCS 3–8).
3.3. Pathophysiology
The pathogenesis can be primary when it correlated directly to the external impact
of the brain and skull; secondary is when molecular, chemical, and inflammatory cascade
inducing further cerebral damage. The primary injuries include Epidural Hematoma,
Acute Subdural Hemorrhage, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Diffuse Axonal Injury, and Skull
Fractures, with possible involvement of cranial nerves [8].
The secondary injuries are of greatest interest, because the metabolic cascade that
begins after the head trauma leads to many biochemical cerebral changes, and it is very
important to know to choose an appropriate therapy.
In the absence of primary lesions and/or obstructive hydrocephalus, the main cause
of brain swelling, and intracranial hypertension is the cerebral edema, which is divided
into two types: vasogenic and cytotoxic: although both are associated with increased ICP,
the latter is more associated with severe TBI.
According to the Monro–Kellie role, the ICP is determined by the sum of blood
volume, cerebral parenchymal, and Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF). In cases of increased ICP,
the self-regulation system and brain compliance maintain intracranial pressure level within
physiological limit allowing an adequate cerebral perfusion pressure. In severe TBI, the
loss of the cerebral compliance causes intracranial hypertension syndrome and brain
herniations [9].
Vasogenic edema consists in the accumulation of water within the interstitial space,
due to an alteration of the blood–brain barrier. On the other hand, cytotoxic edema
involves the accumulation of water in intracellular space. The “primum movens” of this
phenomenon is the alteration of the transport of ions through the cell membrane. Other
contributing factors are mitochondrial dysfunction, with production of reactive nitrogen
(RNS) and oxygen (ROS) species, and exotoxicity due to hyperproduction of excitatory
amino acids such as glutamate [8,10].
Considering its pathogenesis and evolution, treatment of TBI can be equally complex
and expensive. Mild and moderate TBI usually required clinical/radiological monitoring
and medical treatment. Conversely, severe TBI is a main indication for an aggressive and
fast surgical treatment as DC [6,7].
3.4. Decompressive Craniectomy (DC)
A meticulous historical reconstruction, based on archaeological finds, theses, and
treatises, was reported by Rossini and colleagues in 2019 [
11
]. The first historical evidence
of skull trepanation dates to about 10,000 BC, at the beginning of the Neolithic but officially
the first DC FOR severe traumatic brain injury was proposed by Kocher in 1901 [11].
Diseases 2023,11, 22 4 of 10
Because of the extreme pathological variability in the severe TBI, DC plays differ-
ent roles in its management, and several Italian and international consensus conferences
have been organized aiming to define the proper indications for DC [
12
–
14
]. Ultimately,
the definition of primary and secondary DC has been suggested to discriminate be-
tween an emergency (primary DC) or an ultimate (secondary DC) surgical treatment line
(see Table 1).
Table 1. Classification and indications of Decompressive Craniectomy.
Decompressive Craniectomy (DC) Indications Pathophysiology
Primary DC
Acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) in TBI
and seldom lesions at low–medium risk
(such as isolated epidural hematoma
(EDH) and intraparenchymal contusion
or hematoma)
Intracranial lesions causing a mass effect
with altered ICP and brain herniation
postoperatively
Secondary DC
Treatment of brain edema and the
resultant elevated intracranial pressure
(ICP) refractory to first-tier interventions.
The secondary injuries consist in
metabolic cascade that begins after the
head trauma leading to many
biochemical cerebral changes
(vasogenetic edema, loss of cellular
homeostasis with cellular swelling
mitochondrial dysfunction, RNS, ROS)
DC—Decompressive Craniectomy, ASDH—Acute subdural hematoma, EDH—epidural hematoma,
ICP—intracranial pressure, RNS—reactive nitrogen, ROS—reactive oxygen.
3.5. Primary DC
Indications for primary DC include all cases of intracranial lesions causing a mass
effect with an eventual evolution through altered ICP and brain herniation postoperatively.
While isolated epidural hematoma (EDH) and intraparenchymal contusion or hematoma
represent lesions at low–medium risk, acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) is a pathological
condition with high risk for developing intracranial hypertension [
15
]. Therefore, the main
indication for a primary DC is ASDH in severe TBI.
ASDH is a relatively common finding in patients with severe TBI (about one third
of cases) and in most of cases, an emergency evacuation is required. The outcome in
these patients is very poor with a mortality rate ranging between 40 and 60% and a good
functional recovery rate ranging between 19 and 45% [
14
]. In 2012, Li et al. retrospectively
evaluated the outcome in 91 patients with ASDH and randomized in craniotomy versus
primary DC group [
16
]. Results showed not significant differences between CR and DC in
terms of mortality (32% vs. 38%, respectively) (p= 0.65). The unfavorable outcome, defined
as a dead, vegetative status or severe disability, resulted less in the CR group (55%) than the
DC group (58%), despite a statistically significant difference being recorded (p= 0.83) [
16
].
Similarly, Shibahashi et al. studied the in-hospital mortality and length of hospital
stay in 1788 patients with ASDH who underwent CR versus primary DC. The analysis
showed not a significant difference in mortality rate between the 2 groups (41.6% for the CR
group vs. 39.1% for DC). Conversely, the hospital stay was significantly longer in the DC
group (p= 0.005). Interestingly, the subgroup analyses founded a strong relation between
the outcome and DC. In detail, patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score < 9, involved
in high-energy traumatic events and with a survival probability < 64%, were candidates
suitable for DC [
17
]. In 2019, a consensus statement about the role of primary DC in severe
TBI was published aiming to define the most appropriate selection criteria [
13
]. Results
suggested considering primary DC, after the evacuation of ASDH, when intraoperatively,
the brain results in bulging beyond the inner table of the skull. Conversely, the bone flap
should be replaced when the brain is relaxed, and the pre-operative evaluation is not
suspected of a condition with high risk of progressive brain swelling. In detail, predictive
factors in favor of craniotomy are the absence of severe mass lesion, low-energy trauma,
Diseases 2023,11, 22 5 of 10
and elderly patients. Interestingly, a multicenter randomized trial aiming to evaluate the
role of primary DC in patient with ASDH is currently ongoing (RESCUE-ASDH trial) [
15
].
3.6. Secondary DC
In TBI, secondary DC plays a role in the treatment of brain edema and the resultant ele-
vated intracranial pressure (ICP) not responding to first-tier interventions. Two main multi-
centric randomized trials studied the role of DC in TBI: DECRA (ISRCTN61037228) [
18
] and
RESCUEicp (ISRCTN66202560) [
19
]. Both studies investigated the relation between timing
and outcomes in patients that underwent a secondary DC for the treatment of refractory
ICP. However, the RESCUEicp trial enlarged the indication for DC to older patients and
with a higher ICP threshold and a longer clinical onset. In detail, DECRA focused on an
early bifronto-temporal DC for refractory ICP in 155 TBI patients [
18
]. Indication for an
early treatment was a recording ICP above 20 mmHg for more than 15 min in a 1 h-period
within the first 72 h despite the optimization of medical treatment. The short-term outcome
resulted in favor of a DC group, with a better ICP control and a shorter Intensive Care Unit
stay recorded (p< 0.001) [
18
]. However, these data were not confirmed at the 12-months
outcome [
20
]. Mortality rate results were similar between the two groups. Conversely,
vegetative status or a severe disability occurred more frequently in the surgery group than
in the conservative group (70% vs. 51%; p= 0.02). At 12 months, 26% of patients in the
standard care group experienced a better neurological outcome than the DC group (14%)
(OR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12–0.91; p= 0.03). However, it is important to point out that although
the two groups were well matched for most variants, in the DC group, there was a high
proportion of patients with bilateral unreactive pupils compared to the conservative group
(27% vs. 12%; p= 0.04) [20].
Similarly, RESCUE icp focused on late DC for refractory ICP in patients [
19
]. In
this study, indication for a late DC was a recorded ICP above 25 mmHg in a 1-h to 12-h
period within the first 10 days, despite the optimization of medical treatment. In this study,
surgical treatment consisted of the fronto-temporo-parietal DC (or hemicraniectomy) or the
bifrontal DC. The trial evaluated the mortality rate and the functional outcome, using the
GOS-E score, at 6 (primary outcome), 12, and 24 months (secondary outcome). At primary
outcome, results proved that DC guarantees a lower mortality rate (26.9% vs. 48.9% in
the medical group) despite a higher rate of vegetative state and severe disability than
medical management. Conversely a good functional outcome was similar in both groups
(42.8% vs. 34.6%, p= 0.12). At 12 months follow-up, a favorable outcome occurred in
45.4% of the DC group compared with 32.4% of the conservative group (p= 0.12) [
19
]. The
knowledge of probabilistic mortality and morbidity for each case and the awareness of a
high rate of severe disability or vegetative state is essential in the management of severe
TBI. Indeed, before surgery, the discussion with the patient’s family is crucial. The surgeon
must widely explain and be sure that the patient’s family understand the long-term post-
operative recovery and follow-up, and the probable persistent severe disability despite so
aggressive a surgery. The aim of the discussion is to define if a DC to preserve the patient’s
life is preferred despite a low quality of life.
3.6.1. Surgical Techniques
DC is an urgent surgical procedure that requires both a quick operation time and
adequate decompression to guarantee a reduced mortality and morbidity. Different surgical
procedures have been described and classified as infratentorial or supratentorial DC.
Infratentorial or suboccipital DC is unusually employed in the treatment of severe
TBI due to the rare involvement of posterior fossa in severe TBI. Conversely, it is largely
indicated in cases of ischemic or hemorrhagic posterior fossa stroke [11].
Supratentorial DC is further divided into unilateral or bilateral approaches. Each tech-
nique has its own indications. In all cases, the main issue remains the extent of decompres-
sion to avoid additional brain herniation or venous infarction along the craniectomy borders
Diseases 2023,11, 22 6 of 10
and so, additional brain swelling; below is a short overview of the
two most
common tech-
nique (bifrontal DC and fronto-parieto-temporal DC) and the latest technique proposed.
3.6.2. Bifrontal DC
Bilateral DC includes bifrontal craniectomy and bilateral frontotemporal craniec-
tomy, aiming to decompress both hemispheres in cases of diffuse brain edema without
localized lesions.
The primary indication for bifrontal DC is severe TBI with frontal contusions and
diffuse brain edema. In this surgical approach, the patient is in a supine position, without
head rotation. A frontal curve incision is performed anterior to the tragus on each side
and extended 2 to 3 cm posterior to the coronal suture. Great care should be taken to
preserve bilaterally the superficial temporal arteries (STA), being the main vascularization
feeders. A musculocutaneous flap is performed and reflected forward over the orbital
rim. Several burr-holes are bilaterally performed in keyhole areas, squamous parts of the
temporal bones and 1 cm apart from the midline on each side, aiming to facilitate the
dissection of the superior sagittal sinus (SSS). Therefore, a wide bifrontal craniectomy is
completed. Durotomy is so performed, and the goal is to divide the anterior portion of SSS
and underlying falx to guarantee brain expansion and to avoid herniation against a tight
dural edge.
Despite this technique having been largely used in the past, the most recent guidelines
do not recommend its employment [
12
]. Indeed, DECRA confirmed that, although effective
in controlling ICP, bilateral DC does not improve long-term outcomes [18].
3.6.3. Fronto-Parieto-Temporal DC or Hemicraniectomy
Unilateral DC is the most common technique and consists in a fronto-temporo-parietal
craniectomy.
The patient is supine with the head turned to the contralateral side. A large cutaneous
question mark-shaped incision is made. Again, great caref to preserve STA is essential
to avoid ischemic complication of the flap. After dissection and reflection of the muscu-
locutaneous flap, a fronto-parieto-temporal craniectomy is performed. As a general rule,
unilateral DC should not be smaller than 12
×
15 or 15 cm in diameter and extended toward
the floor of the temporal fossa to provide adequate decompression [
21
,
22
]. Indeed, small
decompression could be inadequate and may cause further brain damage by compression
of the brain cortex and cortical veins that so enhance brain herniation.
Additionally, dura opening with dural expansion is recommended to guarantee a
more effective decompression in terms of reduced ICP and increased cerebral tissue oxy-
genation [23,24].
After decompression, the removed bone flap must be appropriately preserved until
the subsequent cranioplasty that should require several months. Mainly, two different
methods have been proposed. The first consists in the position of the bone flap in the
patient’s abdominal wall in a subcutaneous fashion. Considering the added risk of this
procedure, surgeons usually prefer the second method. It consists in storage in a sub-zero
degrees (−20 ◦C)-temperature freezer by authorities named Bone Banks.
3.6.4. Novel Surgical Techniques
A novel DC technique was proposed by Feng and colleagues [
25
]. The main difference
from traditional hemicraniectomy concerns the skin incision, which is performed starting
about 1 cm above the ipsilateral mastoid process and 3–4 cm posterior to the pinna. The
skin incision continues anteriorly, approaching about 1–2 cm away from the midline to the
hairline anteriorly. This technique allows one to perform a sufficiently large hemicraniec-
tomy while being careful during the craniotomy in the lower and rear for the presence
of mastoid air cells and venous sinuses. Additionally, with the retraction of the skin flap,
the external auditory canal could be breached if care is not taken. The main advantages
over the traditional technique are the easier preservation of the vascular territories of the
Diseases 2023,11, 22 7 of 10
superficial temporal artery (STA), ideal for patients suffering from large skin contusions,
diabetes mellitus, or immunosuppression [
25
]. In addition, Veldelman et al. report a lower
risk of infection performing the skin incision posteriorly to the external acoustic meatus
compared to anteriorly [26].
3.7. Complications
After DC, pathophysiological alterations in ICP, CSF circulation, and CBF could induce
complications. Briefly, the increased brain compliance following bone removal reflects
on CBF and autoregulation inducing and alteration in CSF dynamics and so, eventual
complications. The risk of complications is estimated at about 40%. The main cause of
mortality in DC patients is due to brain swelling. Complications can be divided into two
main subgroups, those directly related to DC (acute) and those related to cranioplasty (late)
(see Table 2).
Table 2. Classification of Complications after DC.
Complications Type of Complications
ACUTE COMPLICATIONS
(Directly related to DC)
Ultra-early
Peri-operative events, such as blossoming of
contusion, epidural hematoma, external cerebral
herniation, intracranial infection, epilepsy, CSF
leakage, and wound problems
Early (in the first months)
Subdural effusions or hygromas, evolution of
contralateral mass lesions, paradoxal herniation,
and infection
Delayed events (after 30 days from DC) Syndrome of the sinking skin flap (SSFS) or
Trephined syndrome and hydrocephalus.
LATE COMPLICATIONS
(Related to cranioplasty) Bone resorption, osteomyelitis, and hypo-vascular bone necrosis
DC—Decompressive Craniectomy, CSF—cerebral spinal fluid, SSFS—Syndrome of the sinking skin flap.
3.8. Acute Complications
Acute complications can be further divided into ultra-early, early, and delayed events.
Ultra-early complications include peri-operative events such as blossoming of con-
tusion, epidural hematoma, external cerebral herniation, intracranial infection, epilepsy,
CSF leakage, and wound problems. Blossoming of contusion is due to the development
of a new expanded contusion during bone decompression causing malignant swelling
or elevation of ICP [
11
]. During DC, the bone removal causes alteration on intracranial
pressures and an increase in the hydrostatic pressure gradient, resulting in transcapillary
leakage and brain edema. These alterations can cause external cerebral herniation [27].
Subdural effusions or hygromas, evolution of contralateral mass lesions, paradoxal
herniation, and infection are early complications that can be observed in the first months.
Conversely, delayed complications arise after 30 days from surgery and include syndrome
of the sinking skin flap (SSFS) or trephined syndrome and hydrocephalus. Pathophysiology
of delayed complications is mainly related to CSF dynamics derangements and venous
flow impairments caused by the atmospheric pressure on intracranial cavity resulting in
compliance alterations. Trephined syndrome was first described by Grant and Norcross
in 1939 [
28
]. This syndrome included non-specific cognitive and emotional symptoms
such as dizziness, fatigue, discomfort in the site of the defect, apprehension and insecurity,
depression, and intolerance to vibration. In the 1970s, Yamaura and Makino used the term
“syndrome of the sinking skin flap” (SSSF) to describe the development of focal neurological
deficits in patients who underwent DC. The pathogenesis of the SSFS was linked to the role
of atmospheric pressure on the brain inducing pathological alterations and deformations
resulting in the sinking skin in the cranial defect [
29
]. Similarly, the term “motor trephine
syndrome” was used to define the delayed development of a contralateral monoparesis in
the same population [
30
]. Nowadays, the terms “ST”, “SSSF”, and the “motor trephined
Diseases 2023,11, 22 8 of 10
syndrome” have been replaced by the more generic term “neurological susceptibility to a
skull defect” [31].
Indeed, all these syndromes found a similar pathogenesis due to alteration in CSF
flow and CBF after DC and in a delayed timing before cranioplasty. Therefore, all these
syndromes usually improve after cranioplasty.
3.9. Late Complication
Late complications are mainly related to the cranioplasty surgery [
32
,
33
]. They include
bone resorption, osteomyelitis, and hypo-vascular bone necrosis.
Resorption of the bone flap (aseptic osteonecrosis) is one of the most common late
complications after cranioplasty surgery, especially in children [
34
]. Young age and presence
of ventriculoperitoneal shunt are two risk factors that increase the odds of this severe
complication [
34
–
36
]. Resorption of the bone flap may also lead to brain tissue injury plus
cosmetic damage by forming scars or keloids. To prevent this complication, it is necessary
to accurately choose either the cranioplasty technique or the synthetic materials used [
37
].
The incidence of site infection subsequent to cranioplasty approximates at between
2.3% and 20% [
38
] and is highly variable depending on the type of material used in the
surgical procedure. The evidence from the literature suggests that autologous cranioplasty
is more at risk of developing long-term complications, such as osteomyelitis, than hydrox-
yapatite cranioplasty (6.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively) [
39
]. Alkhaibary et al. performed a
retrospective analysis and found that the most significant predictors of infection in patients
requiring cranioplasty were blood glucose levels and skull defect size (p= 0.03 and p= 0.02,
respectively) [40].
3.10. Outcome
In 2020, Celi and Saal-Zapata reported their case series including 33 patients who
underwent DC aiming to identify factors affecting the mortality of surgically treated TBI.
The study presented significant limitations, such as the few numbers of patients and the
inclusion of different decompressive techniques. However, the in-hospital mortality was
higher in patients with TBI and the midline shift > 5 mm (p= 0.033) or larger skull flap
(p= 0.003) [41].
4. Conclusions
Decompressive craniectomy is still today a life-saving surgery that is indicated in
different situations, especially in patients with TBI [
42
,
43
]. Conflicting data about acute
and late complications on the impact on quality of life demonstrate the need for further
randomized clinical trials. In the therapeutic choice, both primary and secondary DC,
and collegial consultation between anesthesiologists, intensivists, neurosurgeons, and
neuroradiologists is crucial. Last but not least, the right information for the patient’s
family about the risks and benefits of the surgical procedure is an essential moment of the
therapeutic process.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: M.V. and S.M.; Validation, Resources, writing—original
draft preparation: C.Z. and Y.L.; software: A.E.; validation: T.R.; L.A.; data curation: E.S.; visualiza-
tion: A.B. (Andrea Barbanera); project administration: A.B. (Alessandro Bertuccio); formal analysis,
investigation: C.Z.; supervision: Y.L; validation, writing—review and editing; Y.L. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Diseases 2023,11, 22 9 of 10
References
1.
Agrawal, D.; Hussain, N. Decompressive craniectomy in cerebral toxoplasmosis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
2005
,
24, 772–773. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Pérez-Bovet, J.; Garcia-Armengol, R.; Buxó-Pujolràs, M.; Lorite-Díaz, N.; Narvaez-Martinez, A.; Caro-Cardera, J.L.; Rimbau-
Muñoz, J.; Joly-Torta, M.C.; Castellví-Joan, M.; Martín-Ferrer, S. Decompressive craniectomy for encephalitis with brain herniation:
Case report and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir. 2012,154, 1717–1724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Rabelino, G.A.G.; Fons, C.; Rey, A.; Roussos, I.; Campistol, J. Craniectomy in Herpetic Encephalitis. Pediatr. Neurol.
2008
,
39, 201–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Wada, Y.; Kubo, T.; Asano, T.; Senda, N.; Isono, M.; Kobayashi, H. Fulminant Subdural Empyema Treated with a Wide
Decompressive Craniectomy and Continuous Irrigation. Case Report. Neurol. Med. Chir. 2002,42, 414–416. [CrossRef]
5.
Ong, Y.; Goh, K.; Chan, C. Bifrontal decompressive craniectomy for acute subdural empyema. Childs Nerv. Syst.
2002
,18, 340–343.
[CrossRef]
6.
Ziai, W.C.; Port, J.D.; Cowan, J.A.; Garonzik, I.M.; Bhardwaj, A.; Rigamonti, D. Decompressive Craniectomy for Intractable
Cerebral Edema: Experience of a Single Center. J. Neurosurg. Anesthesiol. 2003,15, 25–32. [CrossRef]
7.
Brazinova, A.; Rehorcikova, V.; Taylor, M.; Buckova, V.; Majdan, M.; Psota, M.; Peeters, W.; Feigin, V.L.; Theadom, A.;
Holkovic, L.; et al.
Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury in Europe: A Living Systematic Review. J. Neurotrauma
2021
,
38, 1411–1440. [CrossRef]
8.
Kaur, P.; Sharma, S. Recent Advances in Pathophysiology of Traumatic Brain Injury. Curr. Neuropharmacol.
2017
,16, 1224–1238.
[CrossRef]
9.
Longhitano, Y.; Iannuzzi, F.; Bonatti, G.; Zanza, C.; Messina, A.; Godoy, D.; Dabrowski, W.; Xiuyun, L.; Czosnyka, M.;
Pelosi, P.; et al.
Cerebral Autoregulation in Non-Brain Injured Patients: A Systematic Review. Front. Neurol.
2021
,12, 732176.
[CrossRef]
10.
Zanza, C.; Thangathurai, J.; Audo, A.; Muir, H.A.; Candelli, M.; Pignataro, G.; Thangathurai, D.; Cicchinelli, S.; Racca, F.;
Longhitano, Y.; et al. Oxidative stress in critical care and vitamins supplement therapy: “A beneficial care enhancing”. Eur. Rev.
Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2019,23, 7703–7712.
11.
Rossini, Z.; Nicolosi, F.; Kolias, A.; Hutchinson, P.J.; De Sanctis, P.; Servadei, F. The History of Decompressive Craniectomy in
Traumatic Brain Injury. Front. Neurol. 2019,10, 458. [CrossRef]
12.
Hawryluk, G.W.J.; Rubiano, A.M.; Totten, A.M.; O’Reilly, C.; Ullman, J.S.; Bratton, S.L.; Chesnut, R.; Harris, O.A.; Kissoon, N.;
Shutter, L.; et al. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury: 2020 update of the decompressive craniectomy
recommendations. Neurosurgery 2020,87, 427–434. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Hutchinson, P.J.; Kolias, A.G.; Tajsic, T.; Adeleye, A.; Aklilu, A.T.; Apriawan, T.; Bajamal, A.H.; Barthélemy, E.J.; Devi, B.I.;
Bhat, D.; et al
. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the
Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: Consensus Statement. Acta Neurochir. 2019,161, 1261–1274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Bullock, M.R.; Chesnut, R.; Ghajar, J.; Gordon, D.; Hartl, R.; Newell, D.W.; Servadei, F.; Walters, B.C.; Wilberger, J.; Surgical
Management of Traumatic Brain Injury Author Group. Surgical Management of Traumatic Parenchymal Lesions. Neurosurgery
2006,58, S25–S46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Kolias, A.; Scotton, W.J.; Belli, A.; King, A.; Brennan, P.M.; Bulters, D.O.; Eljamel, M.S.; Wilson, M.H.; Papadopoulos, M.C.;
Mendelow, A.D.; et al. Surgical management of acute subdural haematomas: Current practice patterns in the United Kingdom
and the Republic of Ireland. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2013,27, 330–333. [CrossRef]
16.
Li, L.M.; Kolias, A.G.; Guilfoyle, M.R.; Timofeev, I.; Corteen, E.A.; Pickard, J.D.; Menon, D.K.; Kirkpatrick, P.J.; Hutchinson, P.J.
Outcome following evacuation of acute subdural haematomas: A comparison of craniotomy with decompressive craniectomy.
Acta Neurochir. 2012,154, 1555–1561. [CrossRef]
17.
Shibahashi, K.; Sugiyama, K.; Tomio, J.; Hoda, H.; Morita, A. In-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay with craniotomy
versus craniectomy for acute subdural hemorrhage: A multicenter, propensity score–matched analysis. J. Neurosurg.
2020
,133,
504–513. [CrossRef]
18.
Cooper, D.J.; Rosenfeld, J.V.; Murray, L.; Arabi, Y.M.; Davies, A.R.; D’Urso, P.; Kossmann, T.; Ponsford, J.; Seppelt, I.;
Reilly, P.; et al.
Decompressive Craniectomy in Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011,364, 1493–1502. [CrossRef]
19.
Hutchinson, P.J.; Kolias, A.G.; Timofeev, I.S.; Corteen, E.A.; Czosnyka, M.; Timothy, J.; Anderson, I.; Bulters, D.O.; Belli,
A.;
Eynon, C.A.; et al.
Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension. N. Engl. J. Med.
2016
,
375, 1119–1130. [CrossRef]
20.
Cooper, D.J.; Rosenfeld, J.V.; Murray, L.; Arabi, Y.M.; Davies, A.R.; Ponsford, J.; Seppelt, I.; Reilly, P.; Wiegers, E.;
Wolfe, R.; et al.
Patient Outcomes at Twelve Months after Early Decompressive Craniectomy for Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury in the Randomized
DECRA Clinical Trial. J. Neurotrauma 2020,37, 810–816. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21.
Qiu, W.; Guo, C.; Shen, H.; Chen, K.; Wen, L.; Huang, H.; Ding, M.; Sun, L.; Jiang, Q.; Wang, W. Effects of unilateral decompressive
craniectomy on patients with unilateral acute post-traumatic brain swelling after severe traumatic brain injury. Crit. Care
2009
,
13, R185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Jiang, J.-Y.; Xu, W.; Li, W.-P.; Xu, W.-H.; Zhang, J.; Bao, Y.-H.; Ying, Y.-H.; Luo, Q.-Z. Efficacy of Standard Trauma Craniectomy for
Refractory Intracranial Hypertension with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled
Study. J. Neurotrauma 2005,22, 623–628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Diseases 2023,11, 22 10 of 10
23. Schirmer, C.M.; Ackil, A.A.; Malek, A.M. Decompressive Craniectomy. Neurocritical Care 2008,8, 456–470. [CrossRef]
24.
Reithmeier, T.; Löhr, M.; Pakos, P.; Ketter, G.; Ernestus, R.-I. Relevance of ICP and ptiO2 for indication and timing of decompressive
craniectomy in patients with malignant brain edema. Acta Neurochir. 2005,147, 947–952. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Soto, J.M.; Feng, D.; Sun, H.; Zhang, Y.; Lyon, K.A.; Liang, B.; Reed, L.K.; Huang, J.H. Novel Decompressive Hemicraniectomy
Technique for Traumatic Brain Injury: Technical Note. World Neurosurg. 2021,146, 15–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Veldeman, M.; Daleiden, L.; Hamou, H.; Höllig, A.; Clusmann, H. An altered posterior question-mark incision is associated with
a reduced infection rate of cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy. J. Neurosurg. 2021,134, 1262–1270. [CrossRef]
27. Olivecrona, M.; Rodling-Wahlström, M.; Naredi, S.; Koskinen, L.-O. Effective ICP Reduction by Decompressive Craniectomy in
Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Treated by an ICP-Targeted Therapy. J. Neurotrauma 2007,24, 927–935. [CrossRef]
28. Longhitano, Y.L.; Zanza, C. The Route of Neuro-Critical Care. Rev. Recent Clin. Trials 2022,17, 225–226. [CrossRef]
29. Picard, N. The syndrome of the trephined. J. Neurosci. Rural. Pr. 2015,6, 295–296. [CrossRef]
30.
Stiver, S.I.; Wintermark, M.; Manley, G.T. Motor trephine syndrome: A mechanistic hypothesis. Acta Neurochir. Suppl.
2008
,
102, 273–277. [CrossRef]
31. Honeybul, S. Neurological susceptibility to a skull defect. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2014,5, 83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Alkhaibary, A.; Alharbi, A.; Alnefaie, N.; Almubarak, A.O.; Aloraidi, A.; Khairy, S. Cranioplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the
History, Materials, Surgical Aspects, and Complications. World Neurosurg. 2020,139, 445–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Malcolm, J.G.; Rindler, R.S.; Chu, J.K.; Grossberg, J.A.; Pradilla, G.; Ahmad, F.U. Complications following cranioplasty and
relationship to timing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2016,33, 39–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Bowers, C.A.; Riva-Cambrin, J.; Hertzler, D.A.; Walker, M.L. Risk factors and rates of bone flap resorption in pediatric patients
after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2013,11, 526–532. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Grant, G.A.; Jolley, M.; Ellenbogen, R.G.; Roberts, T.S.; Gruss, J.R.; Loeser, J.D. Failure of autologous bone-assisted cranioplasty
following decompressive craniectomy in children and ad-olescents. J. Neurosurg. 2004,100, 163–168. [CrossRef]
36.
Schuss, P.; Vatter, H.; Oszvald, Á.; Marquardt, G.; Imöhl, L.; Seifert, V.; Güresir, E. Bone Flap Resorption: Risk Factors for the
Development of a Long-Term Complication following Cranioplasty after Decompressive Craniectomy. J. Neurotrauma
2013
,
30, 91–95. [CrossRef]
37.
Kim, S.H.; Kang, D.S.; Cheong, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Song, K.Y.; Kong, M.H. Comparison of Complications Following Cranioplasty
Using a Sterilized Autologous Bone Flap or Polymethyl Methacrylate. Korean J. Neurotrauma 2017,13, 15–23. [CrossRef]
38.
Acciarri, N.; Palandri, G.; Cuoci, A.; Valluzzi, A.; Lanzino, G. Cranioplasty in neurosurgery: Is there a way to reduce complications?
J. Neurosurg. Sci. 2020,64, 1–15. [CrossRef]
39.
van de Vijfeijken, S.E.; Münker, T.J.; Spijker, R.; Karssemakers, L.H.; Vandertop, W.P.; Becking, A.G.; Ubbink, D.T.; Dubois, L.;
Milstein, D.; Depauw, P.; et al. Autologous Bone Is Inferior to Alloplastic Cranioplasties: Safety of Autograft and Allograft
Materials for Cranioplasties, a Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2018,117, 443–452.e8. [CrossRef]
40.
Alkhaibary, A.; Alharbi, A.; Abbas, M.; Algarni, A.; Abdullah, J.M.; Almadani, W.H.; Khairy, I.; Alkhani, A.; Aloraidi, A.; Khairy,
S. Predictors of Surgical Site Infection in Autologous Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Analysis of Subcutaneously Preserved Bone
Flaps in Abdominal Pockets. World Neurosurg. 2020,133, e627–e632. [CrossRef]
41.
Celi, F.; Saal-Zapata, G. Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Brain Injury: In-hospital Mortality-Associated Factors.
J. Neurosci. Rural. Pract. 2020,11, 601–608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Laic, R.A.G.; Bogaert, L.; Sloten, J.V.; Depreitere, B. Functional outcome, dependency and well-being after traumatic brain injury
in the elderly population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Spine 2021, 100849. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Alouani, A.T.; Elfouly, T. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Detection: Past, Present, and Future. Biomedicines
2022
,10, 2472. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
