Assessment of Skin Flaps Above Cranial Defects Following Craniectomy: A Proposed Classification System

Abstract

Objective The assessment of the skin flap above cranial defects (SCD) following craniectomy is routine in neurosurgical practice, and a change in the consistency of the skin flap may indicate raised intracranial pressure or the occurrence of a complication necessitating intervention. The purpose of this study was to develop a clinically useful classification system based on clinical assessment of the degree of skin flap bulging or sinking and its firmness.

Patients and Methods This was a prospective single-center study. The SCDs of consecutive patients who underwent craniectomy were assessed daily by two trained independent examiners. The consistency of the flap and its bulging or sinking in comparison with the level of the cranium were noted. Testing conditions including the positioning of the patient and examiner were standardized.

Results A total of 520 examinations were conducted in 24 patients during their hospital stay. There was 100% interrater reliability (Cohen’s κ = 1.0). In 66.6% of all patients (n = 16/24), a change of the SCD classification in comparison with that recorded on the previous day was noted.

Conclusions The SCD classification facilitates the reproducible and objective assessment of SCDs, enabling reliable monitoring over time and between individuals.

Keywords

assessment - bone defect - craniectomy - classification system - malignant middle cerebral artery infarction

^∗ These authors contributed equally to this article and share the first authorship.

• References

• 1 Honeybul S, Ho KM, Lind CRP, Gillett GR. The current role of decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury. J Clin Neurosci 2017; 43: 11-15
• 2 Lo YT, See AAQ, King NKK. Decompressive craniectomy in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a case-control study. World Neurosurg 2017; 103: 815-820.e2
• 3 Mohan Rajwani K, Crocker M, Moynihan B. Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Br J Neurosurg 2017; 31 (04) 401-409
• 4 Sauvigny T, Göttsche J, Czorlich P, Vettorazzi E, Westphal M, Regelsberger J. Intracranial pressure in patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy: new perspective on thresholds. J Neurosurg 2018; 128 (03) 819-827
• 5 Starke RM, Komotar RJ, Sander Connolly E. Decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. Neurosurgery 2017; 80 (03) N10-N11
• 6 Zhang S, Zhao H, Li H, You C, Hui X. Decompressive craniectomy in hemorrhagic cerebral venous thrombosis: clinicoradiological features and risk factors. J Neurosurg 2017; 127 (04) 709-715
• 7 Hofmeijer J, Kappelle LJ, Algra A, Amelink GJ, van Gijn J, van der Worp HB. ; HAMLET investigators. Surgical decompression for space-occupying cerebral infarction (the Hemicraniectomy After Middle Cerebral Artery infarction with Life-threatening Edema Trial [HAMLET]): a multicentre, open, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8 (04) 326-333
• 8 Jüttler E, Unterberg A, Woitzik J. , et al; DESTINY II Investigators. Hemicraniectomy in older patients with extensive middle-cerebral-artery stroke. N Engl J Med 2014; 370 (12) 1091-1100
• 9 Neugebauer H, Creutzfeldt CJ, Hemphill III JC, Heuschmann PU, Jüttler E. DESTINY-S: attitudes of physicians toward disability and treatment in malignant MCA infarction. Neurocrit Care 2014; 21 (01) 27-34
• 10 Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 2010; 73 (09) 1167-1179
• 11 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
• 12 Schwarz F, Dünisch P, Walter J, Sakr Y, Kalff R, Ewald C. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: is there a rationale for an initial artificial bone-substitute implant? A single-center experience after 631 procedures. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (03) 710-715
• 13 Maas AI, Hukkelhoven CW, Marshall LF, Steyerberg EW. Prediction of outcome in traumatic brain injury with computed tomographic characteristics: a comparison between the computed tomographic classification and combinations of computed tomographic predictors. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (06) 1173-1182 ; discussion 1173–1182
• 14 Markwalder TM, Steinsiepe KF, Rohner M, Reichenbach W, Markwalder H. The course of chronic subdural hematomas after burr-hole craniostomy and closed-system drainage. J Neurosurg 1981; 55 (03) 390-396
• 15 Kothari RU, Brott T, Broderick JP. , et al. The ABCs of measuring intracerebral hemorrhage volumes. Stroke 1996; 27 (08) 1304-1305
• 16 Hemphill III JC, Bonovich DC, Besmertis L, Manley GT, Johnston SC. The ICH score: a simple, reliable grading scale for intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2001; 32 (04) 891-897
• 17 Lyden P, Brott T, Tilley B. , et al; NINDS TPA Stroke Study Group. Improved reliability of the NIH Stroke Scale using video training. Stroke 1994; 25 (11) 2220-2226
• 18 Adamo MA, Drazin D, Waldman JB. Decompressive craniectomy and postoperative complication management in infants and toddlers with severe traumatic brain injuries. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2009; 3 (04) 334-339
• 19 Brown DA, Wijdicks EF. Decompressive craniectomy in acute brain injury. Handb Clin Neurol 2017; 140: 299-318
• 20 Honeybul S, Ho KM, Gillett GR. Reconsidering the role of decompressive craniectomy for neurological emergencies. J Crit Care 2017; 39: 185-189
• 21 Jabbarli R, Oppong MD, Dammann P. , et al. Time is brain! Analysis of 245 cases with decompressive craniectomy due to subarachnoid hemorrhage. World Neurosurg 2017; 98: 689-694.e2
• 22 Phan K, Moore JM, Griessenauer C. , et al. Craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy for acute subdural hematoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2017; 101: 677-685.e2
• 23 Schuss P, Borger V, Vatter H, Singer OC, Seifert V, Güresir E. Antiplatelet therapy, but not intravenous thrombolytic therapy, is associated with postoperative bleeding complications after decompressive craniectomy for stroke. J Neurol 2013; 260 (08) 2149-2155