Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The intracranial pressure–volume relationship following decompressive hinge craniotomy compared to decompressive craniectomy—a human cadaver study

  • Original Article - Neurosurgical intensive care
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Decompressive hinge craniotomy (DHC) is an alternative treatment option to decompressive craniectomy (DC) for elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). The aim of this study was to characterize the difference in pressure–volume relationship between DHC and DC.

Methods

We compared the intracranial pressure–volume relationship in a human cadaver model following either DHC, DC, or fixing of the bone plate by titanium clamps. We inserted an intracranial expandable device in two human cadaver specimens, performed either DHC, DC, or bone plate fixation, and gradually increased the intracranial volume while measuring ICP. Following DHC, we also performed CT-scans at pre-defined intervals.

Results

Before ICP exceeded a threshold of 20 mmHg, a fixed bone plate tolerated an increase of 130 ml of intracranial volume, while DHC and DC allowed an increase of 190 ml and 290 ml, respectively. CT-derived calculations following DHC determined that the increase in intracranial volume at ICP 22 mmHg was 65 ml, the maximal increase of intracranial volume was 84 ml, the maximal bone displacement was 21 mm, and the bone plate volume to be 82 ml. Manual stress test of the hinged bone plate did not allow misalignment or intracranial displacement of the bone plate.

Conclusion

DHC increases the intracranial volume by up to 84 ml and allows for approximately 60 ml increase of intracranial volume before ICP exceeds 20 mmHg. This indicates, when comparing with results from previous studies of herniation volumes, that DHC will be sufficient in many patients with head injury or cerebral infarction with treatment refractory intracranial hypertension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abode-Iyamah KO, Stoner KE, Close LN, DeVries Watson NA, Flouty OE, Grosland NM, Howard MA 3rd (2018) Volume of brain herniation after decompressive craniectomy in patients with traumatic brain injury. World Neurosurg 118:e414–e421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adeleye AO (2016) Clinical and radiologic outcome of a less invasive, low-cost surgical technique of osteoplastic decompressive craniectomy. J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1566115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brasil S, Solla DJF, Nogueira R de C, Jacobsen Teixeira M, Malbouisson LMS, Paiva WS (2021) Intracranial compliance assessed by intracranial pressure pulse waveform. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11080971

  4. Gutman MJ, How E, Withers T (2017) The floating anchored craniotomy. Surg Neurol Int. https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_460_16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kano T, Kurosaki S, Wada H (2012) Retrospective analysis of hinge technique for head trauma or stroke. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.52.816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kenning TJ, Gandhi RH, German JW (2009) A comparison of hinge craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of malignant intracranial hypertension: early clinical and radiographic analysis. Neurosurg Focus. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.4.FOCUS0960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kenning TJ, Gooch MR, Gandhi RH, Shaikh MP, Boulos AS, German JW (2012) Cranial decompression for the treatment of malignant intracranial hypertension after ischemic cerebral infarction: decompressive craniectomy and hinge craniotomy. J Neurosurg 116(6):1289–1298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khanna R (2017) Dynamic decompressive craniotomy with a novel reversibly expandable plate. J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1594013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Khanna R, Ferrara L, Khanna S (2019) Biomechanics of a novel reversibly expandable dynamic craniotomy bone flap fixation plate. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.JNS172614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Layard Horsfall H, Mohan M, Devi BI et al (2019) Hinge/floating craniotomy as an alternative technique for cerebral decompression: a scoping review. Neurosurg Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01180-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Li X, Von Holst H, Kleiven S (2013) Decompressive craniectomy causes a significant strain increase in axonal fiber tracts. J Clin Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2012.04.019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lilja-Cyron A, Andresen M, Kelsen J, Andreasen TH, Fugleholm K, Juhler M (2019) Long-term effect of decompressive craniectomy on intracranial pressure and possible implications for intracranial fluid movements. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raposio E (2018) Scalp expansion: surgical considerations and possible future directions. Indian J Plast Surg Off Publ Assoc Plast Surg India 51(1):84–88

    Google Scholar 

  14. Raposio E, Cella A, Barabino P, Santi P (1999) Ineffectiveness of acute scalp expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg 103(6):1645–1649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauvigny T, Göttsche J, Czorlich P, Vettorazzi E, Westphal M, Regelsberger J (2018) Intracranial pressure in patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy: new perspective on thresholds. J Neurosurg 128(3):819–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stoner KE, Abode-Iyamah KO, Grosland NM, Howard MA (2016) Volume of brain herniation in patients with ischemic stroke after decompressive craniectomy. World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilhelmi BJ, Blackwell SJ, Mancoll JS, Phillips LG (1998) Creep vs. stretch: a review of the viscoelastic properties of skin. Ann Plast Surg 41(2):215–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM et al (2015) Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.JNS14405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank professor of clinical anatomy Jørgen Tranum-Jensen and laboratory chief technician Johnny Grandt, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, for invaluable help with cadaver specimens and technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Christian Baastrup Søndergaard, Alexander Lilja-Cyron & Kåre Fugleholm

  2. Department of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Chiara Villa & Christina Jacobsen

Authors
  1. Christian Baastrup Søndergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiara Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Lilja-Cyron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kåre Fugleholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Baastrup Søndergaard.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was conducted with human cadaver specimens donated from consenting Danish adults with their intention of participating in medical science following their natural death. All patients and data are anonymous and the study is exempted from approval from the Danish Ethics Committee.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neurosurgical intensive care

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 2203 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Søndergaard, C.B., Villa, C., Jacobsen, C. et al. The intracranial pressure–volume relationship following decompressive hinge craniotomy compared to decompressive craniectomy—a human cadaver study. Acta Neurochir 165, 271–277 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05409-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05409-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation