Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is an important cause of secondary brain injury, and a measurement of ICP is often of crucial value in neurosurgical and neurological patients. The gold standard for ICP monitoring is through an intraventricular catheter, but this invasive technique is associated with certain risks. Intraparenchymal ICP monitoring methods are considered to be a safer alternative but can, in certain conditions, be imprecise due to zero drift and still require an invasive procedure. An accurate noninvasive method to measure elevated ICP would therefore be desirable. This article is a review of the current literature on noninvasive methods for measuring and evaluating elevated ICP. The main focus is on studies that compare noninvasively measured ICP with invasively measured ICP. The aim is to provide an overview of the current state of the most common noninvasive techniques available. Several methods for noninvasive measuring of elevated ICP have been proposed: radiologic methods including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, transcranial Doppler, electroencephalography power spectrum analysis, and the audiological and ophthalmological techniques. The noninvasive methods have many advantages, but remain less accurate compared with the invasive techniques. None of the noninvasive techniques available today are suitable for continuous monitoring, and they cannot be used as a substitute for invasive monitoring. They can, however, provide a reliable measurement of the ICP and be useful as screening methods in select patients, especially when invasive monitoring is contraindicated or unavailable.

OBJECTIVE Surgery for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures. The benefit of postoperative passive subdural drainage compared with no drains has been established, but other drainage techniques are common, and their effectiveness compared with passive subdural drains remains unknown. METHODS In Scandinavian population-based cohorts the authors conducted a consecutive, parallel cohort study to compare different drainage techniques. The techniques used were continuous irrigation and drainage (CID cohort, n = 166), passive subdural drainage (PD cohort, n = 330), and active subgaleal drainage (AD cohort, n = 764). The primary end point was recurrence in need of reoperation within 6 months of index surgery. Secondary end points were complications, perioperative mortality, and overall survival. The analyses were based on direct regional comparison (i.e., surgical strategy). RESULTS Recurrence in need of surgery was observed in 18 patients (10.8%) in the CID cohort, in 66 patients (20.0%) in the PD cohort, and in 85 patients (11.1%) in the AD cohort (p < 0.001). Complications were more common in the CID cohort (14.5%) compared with the PD (7.3%) and AD (8.1%) cohorts (p = 0.019). Perioperative mortality rates were similar between cohorts (p = 0.621). There were some differences in baseline and treatment characteristics possibly interfering with the above-mentioned results. However, after adjusting for differences in baseline and treatment characteristics in a regression model, the drainage techniques were still significantly associated with clinical outcome (p < 0.001 for recurrence, p = 0.017 for complications). CONCLUSIONS Compared with the AD cohort, more recurrences were observed in the PD cohort and more complications in the CID cohort, also after adjustment for differences at baseline. Although the authors cannot exclude unmeasured confounding factors when comparing centers, AD appears superior to the more common PD. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01930617 (clinicaltrials.gov).

No abstract