Basal cisternostomy for traumatic brain injury: A case report of unexpected good recovery

The basal cisternostomy for management of severe traumatic brain injury: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health issue that impacts individuals all over the world and is one of the main causes of mortality and morbidity. Decompressive craniectomy is the usual course of treatment. Basal cisternostomy has been shown to be highly effective as an alternative procedure to decompressive craniectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort of patients who received surgery for severe TBI between January 2019 and March 2023. Inclusion criterias were patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years who met the diagnostic criteria for severe TBI at first presentation and who underwent surgical intervention. The exclusion criteria were patients who have severe multiple injuries at the time of admission; preoperative intracranial pressure > 60 mmHg; cognitive impairment before the onset of the disease; hematologic disorders; or impaired functioning of the heart, liver, kidneys, or other visceral organs. Depending on the surgical approach, the patients were categorized into decompressive craniectomy group as well as basal cisternostomy group. General data and postoperative indicators, including Glasgow coma scale, intracranial pressure, etc., were recorded for both groups of patients. Among them, the Glasgow outcome scale extended assessment at 6 months served as the primary outcome. After that, the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 41 patients (32 men and 9 women) who met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 25 patients received decompressive decompressive craniectomy, and 16 patients received basal cisternostomy. Three days postoperative intracranial pressure levels were 10.07 ± 2.94 mmHg and 17.15 ± 14.65 mmHg (p = 0.013), respectively. The 6 months following discharge Glasgow outcome scale extended of patients was 4.73 ± 2.28 and 3.14 ± 2.15 (p = 0.027), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals that basal cisternostomy in patients with surgically treated severe TBI has demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing intracranial pressure as well as patient prognosis follow-up and avoids removal of the bone flap. The efficacy of cisternostomy has to be studied in larger, multi-clinical center randomized trials.

Basal cisternostomy as an adjunct to decompressive hemicraniectomy in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Basal cisternostomy (BC) is a surgical technique to reduce intracranial hypertension following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). As the efficacy and safety of BC in patients with TBI has not been well-studied, we aim to summarize the published evidence on the effect of BC as an adjunct to decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) on clinical outcome following moderate to severe TBI.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies evaluating BC as an adjunct to decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) in moderate to severe TBI. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate summary effect estimates.

RESULTS

Eight studies reporting on 1345 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, of which five (1206 patients) were considered for meta-analysis. Overall, study quality was low and clinical heterogeneity was high. Adjuvant BC (BC + DHC) compared to standalone DHC was associated with a reduction in the length of stay in the ICU (Mean difference [MD]: -3.25 days, 95% CI: -5.41 to -1.09 days, p = 0.003), significantly lower mean brain outward herniation (MD: -0.68 cm, 95% CI: -0.90 to -0.46 cm, p < 0.001), reduced odds of requiring osmotherapy (OR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.41, p = 0.002) as well as decreased odds of mortality at discharge (OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.4 to 0.96, p = 0.03). Adjuvant BC compared to DHC did not result in higher odds of a favourable neurological outcome (OR = 2.50, 95% CI: 0.95-6.55, p = 0.06) and did not affect mortality at final follow-up (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.17 to 3.74, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient data to demonstrate a potential beneficial effect of adjuvant BC. Despite some evidence for reduced mortality and length of stay, there is no effect on neurological outcome. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as they carry a high risk of bias due to overall scarcity of published clinical data, technical variations, methodological differences, limited cohort sizes, and a considerable heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes.

Cisternostomy as an Adjuvant or Standalone Approach for Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of morbidity in all age groups worldwide. Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a salvage procedure in patients with TBI. The outcome and quality of life following DC is questionable. Basal cisternostomy (BC) has been proposed to reduce edema and lead to brain relaxation. It was initially used as an adjunct in TBI patients, thereby improving outcomes. With gaining popularity among neurosurgeons, BC was used as a standalone approach in TBI patients. This network meta-analysis aims to analyze the role of BC either as an adjunct or as a standalone approach in managing TBI patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed and SCOPUS) was performed using the search strategy using the field terms and medical subheading terms (MeSH Terms) to retrieve studies describing the role of BC in patients with TBI either as an adjunct with DC or standalone treatment and their outcome.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles were selected for full-text review and 18 articles were selected for the final analysis. BC alone group was found to have minimum in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.348; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.254 to 0.477) followed by DC combined with BC group (OR, 0.645; 95% CrI, 0.476 to 0.875). DC combined with the BC group was found to have a minimum duration of mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.114; 95% CrI, 0.005 to 2.451) followed by the BC alone group (OR, 0.604; 95% CrI, 0.024 to 15.346). DC combined with the BC group were found to have the maximum Glasgow Outcome Scale score (OR, 1.661; 95% CrI, 0.907 to 3.041) followed by the BC alone group (OR, 1.553; 95% CrI, 0.907 to 3.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed that BC alone was associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates in TBI patients. DC with BC had decreased the requirement of mechanical ventilation. However, larger multi-centric studies from other parts of the world are required to confirm these findings.

Clinical Outcome After Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

INTRODUCTION

 Epidural spinal cord stimulation is a minimally invasive procedure with a growing list of indications. It has a good safety profile and analgesic effect, reduces the severity of spasticity, and activates various brain regions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of epidural spinal cord stimulation in patients with spastic syndrome and chronic disorders of consciousness resulting from severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI).

METHODS

Between 2021 and 2023, an epidural spinal cord stimulation test was performed in 34 patients with central paresis, severe hypertonia, and chronically altered consciousness following sTBI. The severity of spastic syndrome was assessed using a modified Ashworth scale. All patients underwent implantation of a cylindrical eight-contact test epidural electrode at C3-C5 cervical level, followed by neurostimulation and selection of individual modes. Tonic stimulation at a frequency of 60 Hz, "burst" mode, or a combination of the two was used.

RESULTS

 Epidural spinal cord stimulation was administered for an average of 4 ± 1.5 days, with tonic stimulation mode applied in 15 (44.1%) patients, "burst" mode in 10 (29.4%), and a combination of two in nine (26.5%) patients. A reduction in spasticity with clinical improvement was observed in 21 patients (61.8%). The Ashworth scale scores for distal and proximal upper extremities decreased from 3 points to 2.5 points and from 3 points to 2 points, respectively. This was significant in the right upper limbs (p = 0.0152 distally and p = 0.0164 proximally). Significant improvements were also seen in the lower extremities. Active movements in paretic limbs increased or appeared in 12 patients (35.3%), while a heightened level of consciousness was observed in six patients (17.6%). Permanent neurostimulator implantation was performed in 12 patients (35.3%), with no reported surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

 Epidural spinal cord stimulation shows promise as an invasive rehabilitation method for patients with sTBI sequelae. Its use reduced the severity of spastic syndrome in over half of patients and increased active movements in paretic limbs in over a third. Notably, neuromodulation at the cervical level yielded pronounced effects on the upper extremities, both proximally and distally. Findings regarding consciousness level improvement are particularly intriguing but warrant further validation through randomized trials.

Intraventricular haemorrhage treated by extra ventricular drainage with catheter mistakenly penetrating the cisterna ambiens: A case report

Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) is a severe and acute type of stroke with a complex pathophysiology and is a therapeutic challenge. This case report described a man in his early 50's diagnosed with IVH by computed tomography (CT). Although bilateral extraventricular drainage (EVD) was undertaken, a postoperative CT scan showed that while the left catheter was correctly positioned, the right catheter had been wrongly inserted into the cisterna ambiens. The procedure was equivalent to simultaneous EVD combined with cisternostomy. As a consequence, the haematoma was rapidly removed, the risk of infection and long-term hydrocephalus was reduced, and prognosis was improved. Large case-control studies or prospective studies are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this treatment modality.