Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2021
Contralateral subdural effusion after decompressive craniectomy: What is the optimal treatment?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ling Hui, Yang Lijun, Huang Zhaoxu, Zhang Buyi, Dou Zhangqi, Wu Jiawei, Jin Taian, Sun Chongran, Zheng Jian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Contralateral subdural effusion after decompressive craniectomy (CSEDC) is rare, and the optimal treatment is not determined. We present 11 cases of CSEDC and give an overview of the English literature pertaining to this disease.
METHODS: We searched the database at our institution and performed a search of English literature in PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords used were as follows (single word or combination): "subdural hygroma"; "subdural effusion"; "decompressive craniectomy". Only patients with CSEDC and contained adequate clinical information pertinent to the analysis were included.
RESULTS: 11 cases of CSEDC were recorded at our institution. They comprised ten men and one woman with an average age of 41.9 years. All the 8 symptomatic patients underwent surgery and the CSEDC resolved gradually. 68 cases of CSEDC were found in the literature. Including ours, a total of 79 patients were analyzed. Conservative treatment was effective in the asymptomatic patients. 41.7% of the symptomatic CSEDC underwent burr hole drainage and successfully drained the CSEDC. However, 76% of them received subsequent surgery to manage the reaccumulation of CSEDC. 25% of the symptomatic patients underwent cranioplasty, while 13.3% of them received Ommaya drainage later because of CSEDC recurrence. 18.3% of the symptomatic patients underwent cranioplasty plus subduroperitoneal shunting, and all CSEDC resolved completely.
CONCLUSIONS: Burr hole drainage appears to be only a temporary measure. Early cranioplasty should be performed for patients with CSEDC. CSF shunting procedures may be required for patients in whom CSEDC have not been solved or hydrocephalus manifest after cranioplasty.
METHODS: We searched the database at our institution and performed a search of English literature in PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords used were as follows (single word or combination): "subdural hygroma"; "subdural effusion"; "decompressive craniectomy". Only patients with CSEDC and contained adequate clinical information pertinent to the analysis were included.
RESULTS: 11 cases of CSEDC were recorded at our institution. They comprised ten men and one woman with an average age of 41.9 years. All the 8 symptomatic patients underwent surgery and the CSEDC resolved gradually. 68 cases of CSEDC were found in the literature. Including ours, a total of 79 patients were analyzed. Conservative treatment was effective in the asymptomatic patients. 41.7% of the symptomatic CSEDC underwent burr hole drainage and successfully drained the CSEDC. However, 76% of them received subsequent surgery to manage the reaccumulation of CSEDC. 25% of the symptomatic patients underwent cranioplasty, while 13.3% of them received Ommaya drainage later because of CSEDC recurrence. 18.3% of the symptomatic patients underwent cranioplasty plus subduroperitoneal shunting, and all CSEDC resolved completely.
CONCLUSIONS: Burr hole drainage appears to be only a temporary measure. Early cranioplasty should be performed for patients with CSEDC. CSF shunting procedures may be required for patients in whom CSEDC have not been solved or hydrocephalus manifest after cranioplasty.