Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury



High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first‐line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second‐line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy).


To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP.

Search methods

The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group’s Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI‐EXPANDED & CPCI‐S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts.

Selection criteria

We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care.

Data collection and analysis

We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random‐effects model for meta‐analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

Main results

We included three trials (590 participants). One single‐site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started.

Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I2 = 38%; moderate‐quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high‐quality evidence).

Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision‐making.

First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 86%; low‐quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high‐quality evidence).

Second, we assessed the risk of an ‘unfavorable outcome’ evaluated on a non‐traditional dichotomized GOS‐Extended scale (GOS‐E), that is, grouping the category ‘upper severe disability’ into the ‘good outcome’ grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I2 value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants).

Third, we assessed the risk of an ‘unfavorable outcome’ using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS‐E cutoff into ‘favorable’ versus ‘unfavorable’ results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low‐quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I2 = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high‐quality evidence).

With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD −4.66 mmHg, 95% CI −6.86 to −2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled.

Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment‐related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low‐quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events.

Authors’ conclusions

Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long‐term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.

Plain language summary

Partial removal of skull (decompressive craniectomy) to lower treatment‐resistant high pressure in the skull and brain after traumatic brain injury

Review question

This Cochrane Review investigated the effects of a surgical procedure, decompressive craniectomy (DC), on survival and neurological (functional) outcomes for people who have a traumatic brain injury (TBI) that does not penetrate the skull, and high pressure inside the skull that does not respond to medical treatment. In DC part of the skull is removed so the brain has room to expand, and pressure inside the skull can decrease. We compared DC to conventional medical treatments in patients over 12 months old.


The skull is a rigid bone ‘box’ that protects the brain. Consequently, if an injury causes the brain to swell, this leads to an increase in pressure within the skull. This excess pressure is known as high intracranial pressure (ICP), and is a frequent cause of death and disability in brain‐injured people. If ICP cannot be controlled using standard medical measures, then DC may be tried. DC is the surgical removal of a portion of the skull to relieve pressure on the brain. Clinicians are uncertain how effective it is, and do not agree on its role in treatment of TBI.

Search date

This evidence is current to December 2019.

Study characteristics

We identified three relevant trials. One included 27 children (under 18 years); another trial was conducted in multiple sites and recruited 155 adults; and the third was conducted in 24 countries and recruited 408 participants (adolescents and adults). Each compared DC plus standard medical care against standard medical care alone.

In trials, the results are more reliable if patients and medical staff are unaware of which treatment a patient receives. However, the treatment given was evident in these trials, as it is not possible to conceal this type of surgery. The reliability of the results from the trial on children might have been affected because of the methods used to decide which children had DC, and because the trial stopped early. Similarly, the results of another trial might have been affected because of the treatment point at which DC was performed, and because of changes in methods for measuring outcomes. The third trial fit all of our criteria, and was well‐conducted.

Study funding sources

Funders of two studies included national research bodies and the third (and smallest) study reported no specific source of funding.

Key results


There is moderate‐quality evidence that DC reduces the risk of death slightly at six months compared to standard medical treatment (3 studies), and high‐quality evidence that it reduces death at 12 months (1 study).


We analyzed functional outcome in three ways, splitting it into good and bad recovery as follows.

1. Good outcome (including serious disability) versus death or vegetative state: at six months there was no clear benefit for DC (2 studies, low‐quality evidence), but at 12 months there was a clear benefit of DC (1 study, high‐quality evidence).

2. Good outcome (including moderate disability) versus death, vegetative state or serious disability: at six months there was no clear benefit for DC (2 studies), but at 12 months there was a clear benefit of DC (1 study).

3. Good outcome (including minor disability) versus death, vegetative state, serious or moderate disability: at six months (3 studies) and 12 months (1 study) there was no clear benefit for DC.


DC was superior to standard medical treatment for reducing high ICP within 48 hours (2 studies, moderate‐quality evidence).

Adverse events

Adverse events affected more people who have DC, than those who had medical treatment alone (low‐quality evidence). These adverse events included problems that occur later, when the skull fragment was surgically replaced.

Quality of the evidence

The quality of our evidence ranges from high to very low. Evidence for outcomes other than mortality was complicated by differences concerning when to perform DC, as the two largest studies used different criteria for this. The small study on children produced low‐quality evidence that DC has some benefits; a larger study on children is now in progress, and will improve the quality of our evidence once its results are available.

Authors’ conclusions

Implications for practice

  • In the pediatric population (patients under 18 years of age), there is very low quality evidence from one study that decompressive craniectomy (DC) reduces the risk of death and of an unfavorable outcome (death, vegetative status and severe disability) in children with intracranial pressure (ICP) refractory to medical treatment. This evidence is based on a single‐center randomized trial that showed that DC ‐ even without opening the dura mater ‐ is effective in reducing ICP, mortality, and improving functional outcome (Taylor 2001). However, we (the review authors) consider that leaving the dura mater intact renders the procedure suboptimal both in adults and children. This study was very small and we judged it to have a high risk of bias for important domains, so its results must be interpreted with caution. DC may be a reasonable treatment to include as a last step in children with high ICP refractory to all conventional medical options. We await publication of the pediatric results from the RESCUEicp 2016 trial and the planned RANDECPED 2019 trial to see whether the addition of new data improves the quality of evidence for DC in the pediatric population.
  • In adults (18 years and above) with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), and a lower level of refractory high ICP (> 20 mmHg threshold), DC does not reduce mortality or decrease the risk of an unfavorable outcome (moderate quality evidence). This conclusion is based on the results of the DECRA 2011 study, and should be interpreted with caution because of the high risk of bias of the study, the imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the participants and the suboptimal surgical procedure used. It is not possible to predict whether further studies with the same inclusion criteria that used a different surgical technique would change this conclusion. In addition, the lack of clinical equipoise to conduct new trials at this lower ICP threshold, makes it unlikely that the quality of evidence for this population will change.
  • In adults with severe TBI and high ICP (≥ 25 mmHg) refractory to conventional medical treatment (based on the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines (BTF)) DC has an effect in reducing mortality at six months (absolute risk reduction (ARR) 19.8%) and 12 months (ARR 21.5%) after injury. This evidence is high‐quality and is based on the results of the RESCUEicp 2016 trial.
  • In adults with severe TBI and high ICP (≥ 25 mmHg) refractory to conventional medical treatment DC‐increased survival may occur at the expense of surviving with a more or less severe degree of disability, as DC does not decrease the risk of an unfavorable outcome measured in the traditional way of dichotomizing either the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) or the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS‐E) into favorable or unfavorable outcomes (death, vegetative state and severe disability). This evidence is high quality and is based on the results of the RESCUEicp 2016 trial. The degree of disability that should be considered a ‘bad outcome’ is a matter of considerable debate, and is a variable that should be decided by patients and caregivers, and not necessarily by health professionals. It would be helpful to convey the information that DC improves the chance for survival, but with significant disability, to the patient’s family or legal representatives before DC is conducted, so they have the information they need to participate in the medical decision process and take a decision that respects the patients’ preferences, expectations and values.
  • An unavoidable major limitation of this review is that we cannot provide evidence about how and when to decide to conduct DC in patients without ICP monitoring. Therefore, clinicians should not extrapolate the evidence provided here to patients managed without ICP monitoring. The relatively high cost of ICP monitoring, and the lack of robust evidence of its usefulness, will probably limit its implementation in low‐ and middle‐income countries in the immediate future. Even in high‐income centers, ICP monitoring is not conducted routinely in patients with severe TBI. The results of this review are not applicable outside those centers where ICP is routinely monitored.

Implications for research

New studies are needed ‐ especially in the pediatric population ‐ to refine the role of DC in the management of high ICP in patients for whom conventional measures have failed, and to increase the level and quality of the available evidence. The difficulties in designing, implementing, and funding adequately powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considerable; we therefore welcome news of a trial recently registered in France (RANDECPED 2019).

Given the effect of DC in reducing mortality in adults shown by the RESCUEicp 2016, new trials in adults should focus on identifying the clinical and neuroimaging characteristics which would be useful for identifying those patients who can survive with an acceptable quality of life. In addition, future RCTs should define the best timing for DC, the most appropriate surgical technique, and whether some synergistic treatments ‐ hypothermia, barbiturates or any other ‘neuroprotective’ drugs ‐ used together with DC improve the functional outcome and the quality of life of survivors. New studies should take into consideration the improved understanding of the pathophysiology of TBI, together with data obtained from multimodality neuromonitoring, and lessons that can be learned from previous clinical trials.

Comments Off on Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury
  • The review abstracts published on this site are the property of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., and of the Cochrane Review Groups that have produced the reviews.