Clinical trial NCT02594137: A Comparison Between Two Techniques for Performing Decompressive Craniectomy
Official title: A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing 2 Surgical Techniques for Decompressive Craniectomy: With Watertight Duraplasty Versus Without Watertight Duraplasty.
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Brain Edema
Craniocerebral Trauma
Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery
Keywords: Decompressive craniectomy
Brain Edema
Lead sponsor: Hospital of the Restoration, Recife
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2015-11-01
Enrollment: 58
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 60
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The purpose of this study is to compare two surgical techniques for a neurosurgical procedure used to treat cerebral edema (decompressive craniectomy): with watertight duraplasty vs. without watertight duraplasty (rapid closure decompressive craniectomy).

Detailed description: After clinical indication for unilateral decompressive craniectomy (DC), patients were randomized by numbered envelopes into 2 groups: with watertight duraplasty (control group) vs. without watertight duraplasty / rapid closure DC (test group). In all cases, a large trauma flap (i.e. large reverse question mark starting from the tragus and extending to the midline) was performed. Skin, galea and muscle layers were elevated according to surgeon preference. Thus a wide (at least 12x15cm) craniotomy was performed and the temporal bone was removed until flush with the middle fossa floor. After dural opening, watertight duraplasty with pericranium or an artificial graft (at surgeon's discretion) was performed in the control group, while no watertight duraplasty was performed in the test group, and exposed brain parenchyma was covered with Surgicel®. Usual closure was then performed. Patients were then monitored daily by evaluators blinded to the randomization (control or test group) from the date of surgery until hospital discharge or death.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Patients admitted to the Neurotrauma Service of the Hospital of Restoration from January 2012 to December 2013, age range 18 to 60 years old and with clinical indication for decompressive craniectomy.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Indication for bifrontal decompressive craniectomy.
* Indication for Posterior Fossa decompressive craniectomy
* Patients with intra-axial contusions or hematomas requiring surgical evacuation in which case injury to the arachnoid could lead to an increased risk of cerebrospinal fluid leak

Primary outcomes:
measure: Surgical Complications
timeFrame: From surgical procedure until hospital discharge or death (maximum of 90 days)
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Clinical Outcome (Analyzed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale)
timeFrame: From surgical procedure until hospital discharge or death (maximum of 90 days)
measure: Hospital Costs
timeFrame: From surgical procedure until hospital discharge or death (maximum of 90 days)
measure: Surgical Time
timeFrame: From skin incision until closure is completed (maximum of 4 hours)
Other outcomes:
Locations:
Study officials:
affiliation: Hospital of the Restoration
name: Eduardo V Carvalho Junior, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Guresir E, Vatter H, Schuss P, Oszvald A, Raabe A, Seifert V, Beck J. Rapid closure technique in decompressive craniectomy. J Neurosurg. 2011 Apr;114(4):954-60. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.JNS091065. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
citation: Barth M, Tuettenberg J, Thome C, Weiss C, Vajkoczy P, Schmiedek P. Watertight dural closure: is it necessary? A prospective randomized trial in patients with supratentorial craniotomies. Neurosurgery. 2008 Oct;63(4 Suppl 2):352-8; discussion 358. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000310696.52302.99.
citation: Sade B, Oya S, Lee JH. Non-watertight dural reconstruction in meningioma surgery: results in 439 consecutive patients and a review of the literature. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011 Mar;114(3):714-8. doi: 10.3171/2010.7.JNS10460. Epub 2010 Aug 13.
citation: Ragel BT, Klimo P Jr, Martin JE, Teff RJ, Bakken HE, Armonda RA. Wartime decompressive craniectomy: technique and lessons learned. Neurosurg Focus. 2010 May;28(5):E2. doi: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1028.
citation: Kolias AG, Kirkpatrick PJ, Hutchinson PJ. Decompressive craniectomy: past, present and future. Nat Rev Neurol. 2013 Jul;9(7):405-15. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2013.106. Epub 2013 Jun 11.
citation: Vieira E, Guimaraes TC, Faquini IV, Silva JL, Saboia T, Andrade RVCL, Gemir TL, Neri VC, Almeida NS, Azevedo-Filho HRC. Randomized controlled study comparing 2 surgical techniques for decompressive craniectomy: with watertight duraplasty and without watertight duraplasty. J Neurosurg. 2018 Oct;129(4):1017-1023. doi: 10.3171/2017.4.JNS152954. Epub 2017 Nov 17.