Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an operation where a large section of the skull is removed to accommodate brain swelling. Patients who survive will usually require subsequent reconstruction of the skull using either their own bone or an artificial prosthesis, known as cranioplasty. Cranioplasty restores skull integrity but can also improve neurological function. Standard care following DC consists of the performance of cranioplasty several months later as historically, there was a concern that earlier cranioplasty may increase the risk of infection. However, recent systematic reviews have challenged this and have demonstrated that an early cranioplasty (within three months after DC) may enhance neurological recovery. However, patients are often transferred to a rehabilitation unit following their acute index admission and before their cranioplasty. A better understanding of the pathophysiological effects of cranioplasty and the relationship of timing and complications would enable more focused patient tailored rehabilitation programs, thus maximizing the benefit following cranioplasty. This may maximise recovery potential, possibly resulting in improved functional and cognitive gains, enhancement of quality of life and potentially reducing longer-term care needs. This narrative review aims to update multi-disciplinary team regarding cranioplasty, including its history, pathophysiological consequences on recovery, complications, and important clinical considerations both in the acute and rehabilitation settings.

IMPORTANCETrials often assess primary outcomes of traumatic brain injury at 6 months. Longer-term data are needed to assess outcomes for patients receiving surgical vs medical treatment for traumatic intracranial hypertension. OBJECTIVE To evaluate 24-month outcomes for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension treated with decompressive craniectomy or standard medical care.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prespecified secondary analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Surgery With Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp) randomized clinical trial data was performed for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension (>25 mm Hg) from 52 centers in 20 countries. Enrollment occurred between January 2004 and March 2014. Data were analyzed between 2018 and 2021. Eligibility criteria were age 10 to 65 years, traumatic brain injury (confirmed via computed tomography), intracranial pressure monitoring, and sustained and refractory elevated intracranial pressure for 1 to 12 hours despite pressure-controlling measures. Exclusion criteria were bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, bleeding diathesis, or unsurvivable injury.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a decompressive craniectomy with standard care (surgical group) or to ongoing medical treatment with the option to add barbiturate infusion (medical group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was measured with the 8-point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (1 indicates death and 8 denotes upper good recovery), and the 6-to 24-month outcome trajectory was examined. RESULTSThis study enrolled 408 patients: 206 in the surgical group and 202 in the medical group. The mean (SD) age was 32.3 (13.2) and 34.8 (13.7) years, respectively, and the study population was predominantly male (165 [81.7%] and 156 [80.0%], respectively). At 24 months, patients in the surgical group had reduced mortality (61 [33.5%] vs 94 [54.0%]; absolute difference, −20.5 [95% CI, −30.8 to −10.2]) and higher rates of vegetative state (absolute difference, 4.3 [95% CI, 0.0 to 8.6]), lower or upper moderate disability (4.7 [−0.9 to 10.3] vs 2.8 [−4.2 to 9.8]), and lower or upper severe disability (2.2 [−5.4 to 9.8] vs 6.5 [1.8 to 11.2]; χ 2 7 = 24.20, P = .001). For every 100 individualstreatedsurgically,21additionalpatientssurvivedat24months;4wereinavegetativestate, 2 had lower and 7 had upper severe disability, and 5 had lower and 3 had upper moderate disability, respectively. Rates of lower and upper good recovery were similar for the surgical and medical groups (20 [11.0%] vs 19 [10.9%]), and significant differences in net improvement (Ն1 grade) were observed between 6 and 24 months (55 [30.0%] vs 25 [14.0%]; χ 2 2 = 13.27, P = .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE At 24 months, patients with surgically treated posttraumatic refractory intracranial hypertension had a sustained reduction in mortality and higher rates of vegetative state, severe disability, and moderate disability. Patients in the surgical group were more likely to...

Background Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland. Materials and methods An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists. Results One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question. Conclusion The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-018-3683-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.