4.5 Review

Timing for cranioplasty to improve neurological outcome: A systematic review

期刊

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1106

关键词

cognitive outcomes; cranioplasty; motor recovery; neurorehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Cranioplasty is a surgical technique applied for the reconstruction of the skullcap removed during decompressive craniectomy (DC). Cranioplasty improves rehabilitation from a motor and cognitive perspective. However, it may increase the possibility of postoperative complications, such as seizures and infections. Timing of cranioplasty is therefore crucial even though literature is controversial. In this study, we compared motor and cognitive effects of early cranioplasty after DC and assess the optimal timing to perform it. Methods Results A literature research was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We selected studies including at least one of the following test: Mini-Mental State Examination, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test immediate and 30-min delayed recall, Digit Span Test, Glasgow Coma Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale, Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, Level of Cognitive Functioning Scale, Functional Independence Measure, and Barthel Index. Six articles and two systematic reviews were included in the present study. Analysis of changes in pre- and postcranioplasty scores showed that an early procedure (within 90 days from decompressive craniectomy) is more effective in improving motor functions (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.51 [0.05; 0.97], p-value = 0.03), whereas an early procedure did not significantly improve neither MMSE score (SMD = 0.06 [-0.49; 0.61], p-value = 0.83) nor memory functions (SMD = -0.63 [-0.97; -0.28], p-value < 0.001). No statistical significance emerged when we compared studies according to the timing from DC. Conclusions It is believed that cranioplasty performed from 3 to 6 months after DC may significantly improve both motor and cognitive recovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据