Decompressive Craniectomy with or Without Dural Closure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract

Decompressive craniectomy is used to alleviate intracranial pressure in cases of traumatic brain injury and stroke by removing part of the skull to allow brain expansion. Traditionally, this procedure is followed by a watertight dural suture, although evidence supporting this method is not strong. This meta-analysis examines the feasibility of the open-dura (OD) approach versus the traditional closed-dura (CD) technique with watertight suturing. A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis were conducted on OD and CD dural closure techniques. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant trials. The primary end point was the rate of complications, with specific analyses for infection and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. Mortality, poor neurological outcomes, and operation duration were also assessed. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Following a comprehensive search, 930 studies were screened, from which four studies and a total of 368 patients were ultimately selected. The primary outcome analysis showed a reduced likelihood of complications in the OD group when compared with the CD group (368 patients, odds ratio 0.54 [95% CI 0.32-0.90]; I² = 17%; p < 0.05). Specific analysis of infections and CSF leaks did not show statistically significant results, as well as the evaluation of the mortality rates and poor neurological outcome differences between groups. Assessment of operation duration, however, demonstrated a significant difference between techniques, with a mean reduction of 52.50 min favoring the OD approach (mean difference - 52.50 [95% CI - 92.13 to - 12.87]; I² = 96%). This study supports the viability of decompressive craniectomy without the conventional time-spending watertight duraplasty closure, exhibiting no differences in the rate of infections or CSF leaks. Furthermore, this approach has been associated with improved rates of complications and faster surgery, which are important aspects of this technique, particularly in its potential to reduce both costs and procedure length.