Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension: A United Kingdom and Ireland Survey on Practice Variation.
csf diversion
csf drainage
intracranial hypertension
lumbar drainage
raised intracranial pressure
traumatic brain injury
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
accepted:
12
06
2022
entrez:
15
7
2022
pubmed:
16
7
2022
medline:
16
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established means for achieving control of intracranial pressure (ICP), aimed at improving intracranial homeostasis. The literature and anecdotal reports suggest a variation in practice between neurosurgical centres internationally, with current guidelines advocating ventricular drainage over lumbar drainage. We sought to establish the current neurosurgical practice in the United Kingdom regarding the methods of ICP control in TBI. Methods A 20-point survey was distributed electronically to British and Irish neurosurgeons after ratification by the Society of British Neurological Surgeons. Questions were directed at the clinician's opinion and experience of lumbar drain usage in patients with TBI: frequency, rationale, and experience of complications. Questions on lumbar drain usage in neurovascular patients were asked for practice comparison. Results Thirty-six responses from 21 neurosurgical centres were returned. Twenty-three per cent (23%) of responders reported using lumbar drains for refractory ICP in TBI patients: six units use lumbar drains and 15 do not. Three units showed partial usage, with mixed "yes/no" responses between consultants. Concerns of tonsillar herniation and familiarity with EVD were commonly given reasons against the usage of lumbar drains. Fifty-six per cent (56%) reported use in neurovascular patients. Conclusion This contemporary practice survey demonstrates mixed practice across the UK and within some centres. Responses and survey feedback demonstrate that the use of lumbar drains in TBI is a polarising topic. The variety of practice between and within neurosurgical units supports consideration of the prospective study of CSF diversion methods for control of refractory ICP in patients with TBI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35836457
doi: 10.7759/cureus.25877
pmc: PMC9275783
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e25877Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Chowdhury et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Anesth Analg. 2010 Jul;111(1):46-58
pubmed: 20522706
Br J Neurosurg. 2020 Feb;34(1):20-23
pubmed: 31858834
World Neurosurg. 2012 Jan;77(1):160-5
pubmed: 22154151
Neurocrit Care. 2019 Aug;31(1):11-21
pubmed: 31037639
Crit Rev Neurosurg. 1999 Jan 26;9(1):21-27
pubmed: 9933364
Future Microbiol. 2019 Jul;14:859-866
pubmed: 31165635
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 Mar;142:43-47
pubmed: 26808077
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Jun;62(6):676-84
pubmed: 15170277
Neurocrit Care. 2013 Oct;19(2):199-205
pubmed: 23739926
Can Med Assoc J. 1938 Nov;39(5):449-50
pubmed: 20321149
Neurosurgery. 2017 Jan 01;80(1):6-15
pubmed: 27654000
BMC Neurol. 2020 Aug 15;20(1):303
pubmed: 32799821
Trans Med Chir Soc Edinb. 1824;1:84-122
pubmed: 29583621
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2008;102:89-91
pubmed: 19388295
Br J Anaesth. 1963 Feb;35:118-20
pubmed: 13997991
Neurosurgery. 2021 Aug 16;89(3):395-405
pubmed: 34171100
J Neurosurg. 2019 Jan 4;132(1):306-312
pubmed: 30611143
J Neurotrauma. 2004 Sep;21(9):1113-22
pubmed: 15453982
Br Med J. 1969 Feb 15;1(5641):407-9
pubmed: 5763958
Front Oncol. 2020 May 07;10:606
pubmed: 32457833
Br J Neurosurg. 2017 Aug;31(4):459-463
pubmed: 28292204
J Neurosurg. 2009 Jun;110(6):1200-8
pubmed: 19249925