Indications and scientific support for supratentorial unilateral decompressive craniectomy for different subgroups of patients: A scoping review

Context

Even 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 methods

A 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.

Results

Two 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.

Conclusion

To 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.