Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 6606  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

 Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded60    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 1384--1390

Basal Cisternostomy in Head Injury: More Questions than Answers

1 Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Veerbhadra Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Veerbhadra Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India

Correspondence Address:
Nishant Goyal
Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Veerbhadra Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand - 249 203
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.355117

Rights and Permissions

Background: Cisternostomy has recently been reintroduced in the setting of severe TBI as an adjuvant surgical technique for decreasing brain edema and refractory intracranial hypertension. However, there is not much clarity regarding its role in head injury. Objective: Study the effect of cisternostomy on intracranial pressure, morbidity, and mortality in head-injured patients. Material and Methods: We conducted a single-center quasi-experimental study between November 2018 and November 2020. All candidates for decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) were divided into two groups: DHC-BC (undergoing basal cisternostomy with DHC) and DHC (undergoing DHC alone). We compared the impact of surgery on decreasing ICP and clinical outcomes in both groups. Results: During the study duration, we admitted 659 head-injury patients. Forty patients were included in the study (9 in the DHC-BC group and 31 in the DHC group). Both the groups were comparable in terms of baseline clinical characteristics such as age, gender, preoperative GCS, head injury severity, radiological features, and opening ICP. Patients in both groups had a decline in ICP following surgery. The mean closing pressure in the DHC-BC group (11.3 ± 5.9) was significantly higher than that in the DHC group (5.3 ± 3.5) (P = 0.003). The mean drop in ICP in the DHC-BC group was 14.4 ± 11.5 while that in the DHC group was 18.9 ± 12.4 (P = 0.359). The average total number of hours of ICP >20 mm Hg and intracranial hypertension index were higher for the DHC-BC group. The average number of days of stay in the ICU and hospital were lower for the DHC-BC group (7.0 ± 6.1 and 15.0 ± 20.2, respectively) compared to the DHC group (10.6 ± 9.3 and 19.3 ± 13.9, respectively). The 30-day mortality rate was higher for the DHC-BC group (66.6%) than the DHC group (32.2%). The mean GCS at discharge was better in the DHC-BC group (11.7 ± 2.9) compared to 10.5 ± 3.7 in the DHC group, while 11.1% of patients in the DHC-BC group had a favorable outcome (1-month GOS-E) compared to 9.7% patients in the DHC group. Conclusions: Our preliminary single-center study failed to show a clear benefit of adding basal cisternostomy to decompressive hemicraniectomy in patients with head injuries.


Print this article     Email this article

Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow