ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Indications and scientific support for supratentorial unilateral decompressive craniectomy for different subgroups of patients: A scoping review.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond decompression: predictors of cranioplasty failure in pediatric patients - a meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Pooled it
- Intracranial Pressure Monitoring, Heart Rate Variability, Baroreflex Sensitivity, and Signal Complexity During Neurointensive Care after Decompressive Craniectomy in Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: insights from a 15-year multicentre cohort in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Current status and advances in comprehensive treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China: from evidence-based guidelines to clinical practice.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextEven though supratentorial unilateral decompressive craniectomy (DC) has become the gold standard neurosurgical procedure aiming to provide long term relief of intractable intracranial hypertension, its indication has only been validated by high-quality evidence for traumatic brain injury and malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. This scoping review aims to summarize the available evidence regarding DC for these two recognized indications, but also for less validated indications that we may encounter in our daily clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted on Medline / Pubmed database from inception to present time looking for articles focused on 7 possible indications for DC indications. Studies' level of evidence was assessed using Oxford University level of evidence scale. Studies' quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale for systematic reviews of cohort studies and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials.
resultsTwo randomized trials (level 1b) reported the possible efficacy of unilateral DC and the mitigated efficiency of bifrontal DC in the trauma setting. Five systematic reviews meta-analyses (level 2a) supported DC for severely injured young patients with acute subdural hematoma probably responsible for intraoperative brain swelling, while one randomized controlled trial (level 1b) showed comparable efficacy of DC and craniotomy for ASH with intraoperative neutral brain swelling. Three randomized controlled trials (level 1b) and two meta-analyses (level 1a and 3a) supported DC efficacy for malignant ischemic stroke. One systematic review (level 3a) supported DC efficacy for malignant meningoencephalitis. One systematic review meta-analysis (level 3a) supported DC efficacy for malignant cerebral venous thrombosis. The mitigated results of one randomized trial (level 1b) did not allow to conclude for DC efficacy for intracerebral hemorrhage. One systematic review (level 3a) reported the possible efficacy of primary DC and the mitigated efficacy of secondary DC for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Too weak evidence (level 4) precluded from drawing any conclusion for DC efficacy for intracranial tumors.
conclusionTo date, there is some scientific background to support clinicians in the decision making for DC for selected cases of severe traumatic brain injury, acute subdural hematoma, malignant ischemic stroke, malignant meningoencephalitis, malignant cerebral venous thrombosis, and highly selected cases of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39340636What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.