Overt Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage Is Not a Sine Qua Non for Paradoxical Herniation After Decompressive Craniectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE: Paradoxical transtentorial herniation is a rare but well-documented complication of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage in patients with large decompressive craniectomies. However, brain sagging in the absence of CSF hypovolemia has not been previously reported. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 30-year-old woman suffered massive intracerebral hemorrhage from a small residual left frontal arteriovenous malformation 1 year following endovascular embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery. The patient initially presented in coma with left mydriasis and decorticate posturing and underwent emergent decompressive craniectomy, evacuation of the hematoma, and insertion of an intracranial pressure (ICP) monitor. Postoperatively, despite a depressed skin flap and low ICP readings, she continued to deteriorate neurologically, and CT revealed increasing midline shift, transtentorial herniation, and brainstem compression. INTERVENTION OR TECHNIQUE: Although there was no history of CSF drainage, the diagnosis of brain sag was suspected, because herniation seemed to occur in the setting of intracranial hypotension. The patient was placed in a 15 degrees Trendelenburg position and improved dramatically within hours. A few days later, she was fully awake and had purposeful movements with her left side, although she had persistent aphasia and right hemiplegia. CONCLUSION: Although rare, paradoxical herniation in the setting of a large craniectomy defect may occur in the absence of CSF drainage. This entity should be suspected whenever transtentorial herniation occurs in conjunction with direct or indirect signs of intracranial hypotension. Placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position should be attempted, because this simple maneuver may turn out to be life-saving.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".