Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Service of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Mar;162(3):469-479. doi: 10.1007/s00701-020-04222-y. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
To evaluate the value of an adjuvant cisternostomy (AC) to decompressive craniectomy (DC) for the management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).
A single-center retrospective quality control analysis of a consecutive series of sTBI patients surgically treated with AC or DC alone between 2013 and 2018. A subgroup analysis, "primary procedure" and "secondary procedure", was also performed. We examined the impact of AC vs. DC on clinical outcome, including long-term (6 months) extended Glasgow outcome scale (GOS-E), the duration of postoperative ventilation, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mortality, Glasgow coma scale at discharge, and time to cranioplasty. We also evaluated and analyzed the impact of AC vs. DC on post-procedural intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain tissue oxygen (PbO) values as well as the need for additional osmotherapy and CSF drainage.
Forty patients were examined, 22 patients in the DC group, and 18 in the AC group. Compared with DC alone, AC was associated with significant shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, as well as better Glasgow coma scale at discharge. Mortality rate was similar. At 6-month, the proportion of patients with favorable outcome (GOS-E ≥ 5) was higher in patients with AC vs. DC [10/18 patients (61%) vs. 7/20 (35%)]. The outcome difference was particularly relevant when AC was performed as primary procedure (61.5% vs. 18.2%; p = 0.04). Patients in the AC group also had significant lower average post-surgical ICP values, higher PbO values and required less osmotic treatments as compared with those treated with DC alone.
Our preliminary single-center retrospective data indicate that AC may be beneficial for the management of severe TBI and is associated with better clinical outcome. These promising results need further confirmation by larger multicenter clinical studies. The potential benefits of cisternostomy should not encourage its universal implementation across trauma care centers by surgeons that do not have the expertise and instrumentation necessary for cisternal microsurgery. Training in skull base and vascular surgery techniques for trauma care surgeons would avoid the potential complications associated with this delicate procedure.
评估辅助性脑池造口术(AC)在减压性颅骨切开术中(DC)治疗严重创伤性脑损伤(sTBI)患者中的价值。
对 2013 年至 2018 年期间接受 AC 或 DC 单独手术治疗的连续 sTBI 患者进行单中心回顾性质量控制分析。还进行了亚组分析,即“主要程序”和“次要程序”。我们检查了 AC 与 DC 对临床结果的影响,包括长期(6 个月)格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS-E)、术后通气时间和重症监护病房(ICU)停留时间、死亡率、出院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)以及颅骨成形术的时间。我们还评估和分析了 AC 与 DC 对术后颅内压(ICP)和脑组织氧(PbO)值以及对额外渗透治疗和 CSF 引流的需求的影响。
共检查了 40 例患者,其中 DC 组 22 例,AC 组 18 例。与单独 DC 相比,AC 与机械通气和 ICU 停留时间明显缩短,以及出院时 GCS 明显改善。死亡率相似。在 6 个月时,AC 组患者的良好结局(GOS-E≥5)比例高于 DC 组[18 例患者中有 10 例(61%)vs. 20 例患者中有 7 例(35%)]。当 AC 作为主要程序时,结果差异更为显著(61.5% vs. 18.2%;p=0.04)。与单独接受 DC 治疗的患者相比,AC 组患者的平均术后 ICP 值更低,PbO 值更高,需要的渗透治疗更少。
我们的初步单中心回顾性数据表明,AC 可能有利于严重 TBI 的治疗,并与更好的临床结果相关。这些有希望的结果需要通过更大的多中心临床研究进一步证实。对于没有颅骨底和血管手术技术培训的创伤护理外科医生来说,脑池造口术的潜在益处不应鼓励他们在创伤护理中心普遍实施。对创伤护理外科医生进行颅骨底和血管手术技术培训将避免与该精细手术相关的潜在并发症。