Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Single Center Experience.
Brain injuries
Cerebrospinal fluid drainage
Critical care
Intracranial hypertension
Neurosurgery
Traumatic
Journal
World neurosurgery
ISSN: 1878-8769
Titre abrégé: World Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
27
02
2023
revised:
09
05
2023
accepted:
10
05
2023
medline:
9
8
2023
pubmed:
20
5
2023
entrez:
19
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a common neurosurgical procedure for control of intracranial pressure (ICP) in the acute phase after traumatic brain injury (TBI), where medical management is insufficient. CSF can be drained via an external ventricular drain (EVD) or, in selected patients, via a lumbar (external lumbar drain [ELD]) drainage catheter. Considerable variability exists in neurosurgical practice on their use. A retrospective service evaluation was completed for patients receiving CSF diversion for ICP control after TBI, from April 2015 to August 2021. Patients were included whom fulfilled local criteria deeming them suitable for either ELD/EVD. Data were extracted from patient notes, including ICP values pre/postdrain insertion and safety data including infection or clinically/radiologically diagnosed tonsillar herniation. Forty-one patients were retrospectively identified (ELD = 30 and EVD = 11). All patients had parenchymal ICP monitoring. Both modalities affected statistically significant decreases in ICP, with relative reductions at 1, 6, and 24 hour pre/postdrainage (at 24-hour ELD P < 0.0001, EVD P < 0.01). Similar rates of ICP control failure, blockage and leak occurred in both groups. A greater proportion of patients with EVD were treated for CSF infection than with ELD. One event of clinical tonsillar herniation is reported, which may have been in part attributable to ELD overdrainage, but which did not result in adverse outcome. The data presented demonstrate that EVD and ELD can be successful in ICP control after TBI, with ELD limited to carefully selected patients with strict drainage protocols. The findings support prospective study to formally determine the relative risk-benefit profiles of CSF drainage modalities in TBI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a common neurosurgical procedure for control of intracranial pressure (ICP) in the acute phase after traumatic brain injury (TBI), where medical management is insufficient. CSF can be drained via an external ventricular drain (EVD) or, in selected patients, via a lumbar (external lumbar drain [ELD]) drainage catheter. Considerable variability exists in neurosurgical practice on their use.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective service evaluation was completed for patients receiving CSF diversion for ICP control after TBI, from April 2015 to August 2021. Patients were included whom fulfilled local criteria deeming them suitable for either ELD/EVD. Data were extracted from patient notes, including ICP values pre/postdrain insertion and safety data including infection or clinically/radiologically diagnosed tonsillar herniation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty-one patients were retrospectively identified (ELD = 30 and EVD = 11). All patients had parenchymal ICP monitoring. Both modalities affected statistically significant decreases in ICP, with relative reductions at 1, 6, and 24 hour pre/postdrainage (at 24-hour ELD P < 0.0001, EVD P < 0.01). Similar rates of ICP control failure, blockage and leak occurred in both groups. A greater proportion of patients with EVD were treated for CSF infection than with ELD. One event of clinical tonsillar herniation is reported, which may have been in part attributable to ELD overdrainage, but which did not result in adverse outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The data presented demonstrate that EVD and ELD can be successful in ICP control after TBI, with ELD limited to carefully selected patients with strict drainage protocols. The findings support prospective study to formally determine the relative risk-benefit profiles of CSF drainage modalities in TBI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37207724
pii: S1878-8750(23)00678-2
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.05.047
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e265-e272Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.