Comparative Analysis of Duroplasty Techniques in Decompressive Craniectomy: The CANDID Study.

BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVE

At present, there is no consensus regarding the most optimal dural substitute to use for duroplasty in primary decompressive craniectomy (PDC) for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The author's objective was to conduct a retrospective analysis comparing 2 techniques of PDC: duroplasty using anterior-based vascularized galea pericranium (VP group) with synthetic dural substitute duroplasty (SR group).

METHODS

From April 2015 to February 2022, 379 craniotomies were done for TBI. The outcome of eligible 97 consecutive patients receiving PDC treatment were examined. Out of 97, 60 received vascularized galea pericranium and 37 received synthetic dural graft for dural augmentation. Propensity matching generated 28 pairs (56 patients) for analysis. The primary outcome was extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) measured at 6 months after injury. Secondary outcomes included were incidence of surgical complications (neurosurgical site infections, and hemorrhagic and hydrodynamic complications), surgical time, days in intensive care unit, hospital length of stay, hospital mortality, and GOS-E at 1 year after injury.

RESULTS

Patients in VP group, compared with those in SR group had better GOS-E score at 6 months ( P = .011) and 1 year ( P = .026). Hospital mortality ( P = .342), days in intensive care unit ( P = .574), hospital stay ( P = .155), surgical time ( P = .131), medical and surgical complications including neurosurgical infections, and hemorrhagic and hydrodynamic complications did not differ significantly in both groups. Complication of brain abscess was found exclusively in the SR group ( P = .327).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, adults who underwent PDC for TBI using anterior-based vascularized galea pericranial graft were associated with better clinical outcomes at 6 months and 1 year compared with standard repair group using synthetic dural substitute (G patch).