4.1 Article

Early decompressive craniotomy in children with severe traumatic brain injury

Journal

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 666-673

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-003-0804-3

Keywords

decompressive craniectomy; decompressive craniotomy; acute deterioration; raised intracranial pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Decompressive craniectomy remains a controversial procedure in the treatment of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) associated with post-traumatic brain swelling. Although there are a number of studies in adults published in the literature on this topic, most commonly as a salvage procedure in the treatment of refractory raised ICP, there are few that investigate it primarily in children with head injuries. Aim. Our aim was to report the experience with decompressive craniotomy in children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) at the Red Cross Children's' hospital. Methods. This study reports five patients in whom decompressive craniectomy or craniotomy with duraplasty was used as an early, aggressive treatment of raised ICP causing secondary acute neurological deterioration after head injury. The rationale was to save the patient from acute cerebral herniation and to prevent exposure to a prolonged course of intracranial hypertension. Results. All patients benefited from the procedure, demonstrating control of ICP, radiological improvement and neurological recovery. Long-term follow-up was available, with outcome assessed at a minimum of 14 months after injury. Discussion. The early approach to the use of decompressive craniotomy in the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) with secondary deterioration due to raised ICP is emphasised. A favourable outcome was achieved in all of the cases presented. The potential benefit of decompressive craniectomy/craniotomy in the management of children with severe TBI is discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available