4.6 Article

Decompressive craniectomy in cerebral venous thrombosis: a single centre experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 84, Issue 9, Pages 995-1000

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-303356

Keywords

SINUS THROMBOSIS; SURGERY

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is an important cause for stroke in the young where the role for decompressive craniectomy is not well established. Objective To analyse the outcome of CVT patients treated with decompressive craniectomy. Methods Clinical and imaging features, preoperative findings and long-term outcome of patients with CVT who underwent decompressive craniectomy were analysed. Results Over 10years (2002-2011), 44/587 (7.4%) patients with CVT underwent decompressive craniectomy. Diagnosis of CVT was based on magnetic resonance venography (MRV)/inferior vena cava (IVC). Decision for surgery was taken at admission in 19/44 (43%), within 12h in 5/44 (11%), within first 48h in 15/44 (34%) and beyond 48h in 10/44 (22%). Presence of midline shift of 10mm (p<0.0009) and large infarct volume (mean 146.63ml; SD 52.459, p<0.001) on the baseline scan influenced the decision for immediate surgery. Hemicraniectomy was done in 38/44 (86%) and bifrontal craniectomy in 6/44 (13.6%). Mortality was 9/44 (20%). On multivariate analysis (5% level of significance) age <40years and surgery within 12h significantly increased survival. Mean follow-up was 25.5months (range 3-66months), 26/35 (74%) had 1year follow-up. Modified Rankin Scale (mRs) continued to improve even after 6months with 27/35 (77%) of survivors achieving mRs of 2. Conclusions This is the largest series on decompressive craniectomy for CVT in literature to date. Decompressive craniotomy should be considered as a treatment option in large venous infarcts. Very good outcomes can be expected especially if done early and in those below 40years.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available