Decompressive Craniectomy Is Not an Independent Risk Factor for Communicating Hydrocephalus in Patients With Increased Intracranial Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It was recently suggested that communicating hydrocephalus is an almost universal finding after hemicraniectomy and that early cranioplasty may prevent the need for permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a study in an attempt to verify these findings. METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent decompressive craniectomy for medically refractory elevated intracranial pressure between 2001 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, or head trauma were excluded. Hydrocephalus was classified as internal or external and as clinically significant or asymptomatic. RESULTS: The patient population consisted of 17 patients, 8 men and 9 women, with a median age of 44 years (range, 27-53 years). Etiologies included malignant middle cerebral artery territory infarction in 12 patients, hemorrhagic transformation of ischemic cerebrovascular accident in 2 patients, dural sinus thrombosis in 2 patients, and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident in 1 patient. The extent of craniectomy ranged from a large bone flap in 4 patients to a standard hemicraniectomy in 13 patients. Two patients died and 1 was lost to follow-up during the acute stage. The remaining 14 patients underwent cranioplasty after a median interval of 21 days (range, 3-42 days). In none of these patients did clinically significant hydrocephalus develop requiring cerebrospinal fluid diversion. Asymptomatic extra-axial cerebrospinal fluid collections developed in 2 patients that resolved spontaneously after cranioplasty. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, contrary to some beliefs, hydrocephalus does not frequently occur after decompressive craniectomy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".