Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
6 (
3
); 298-299
doi:
10.4103/0976-3147.154583

The syndrome of the trephined

Department of Neurosurgery, “Dr. Abraham Piñeyro” Hospital, Junín, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Address for correspondence: Dr. Nelson Picard, Department of Neurosurgery, “Dr. Abraham Piñeyro” Hospital, Lavalle 1084, Junín (B), 6000, Argentina. E-mail: napicard@yahoo.com
Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an effective treatment in the management of post-traumatic intracranial hypertension.[1] It is also a recognized lifesaving intervention for the treatment of malignant middle cerebral artery infarct.[2] However, the DECRA (decompressive craniectomy in patients with severe traumatic brain injury) has shown that the DC is not a harmless procedure. If the indication threshold is sensibly reduced its associated risks can overcome its potential benefits.[3] In addition, the risks of the DC are not limited just to the surgery and the immediate post-surgical period. Deferred complications might appear either associated to the cranial opening or to the cranial repair (cranioplasty).[4]

Post-surgically, once the cerebral edema subsides and the risks of acute major complications have been left behind, craniectomized patients are frequently referred for rehabilitation. Many of these patients present severe disabilities, and sometimes the lack of improvement might erroneously be considered as sequelae of the primary brain injury. In 1939, Grant and Norcross[5] published a series of 83 patients, out of which 12 (14.5%) had undergone a surgery due to “syndrome of the trephine” (ST): Dizziness, undue fatigability, vague discomfort at the site of the defect, a feeling of apprehension and insecurity, mental depression and intolerance to vibration. In the 1970s, Yamaura and Makino coined the term “syndrome of the sinking skin flap” (SSSF) to describe the “objective” focal neurological deficits that can occur in the same population of patients. It has recently been proposed that “ST,” “SSSF,” and the “motor trephined syndrome” could be replaced by the more neutral term “neurological susceptibility to a skull defect.”[6] Ultimately, it is the neurological improvement once the cranial defect is repaired what in fact definitively confirms the diagnosis.[7]

The authors present a retrospective review of 29 craniectomized patients (due to various etiologies, i.e. trauma, infarct, infection, hemorrhage) out of which 7 (~25%) developed reversible neurologic symptoms or behavioral disturbance.[8] They establish a very interesting differentiation regarding the evolution of these patients: Five developed an arrest of rehabilitation, whereas the remaining two showed a differed acute deficit. The author's series draws the attention to the significant incidence of symptoms reverted by cranioplasty. The reported radiological findings (ventricular effacement, midline shift, sunken scalp flap contour) as risk factors for ST are also interesting. As the authors established, their presence may be helpful for diagnosis of ST and also setting expectations with patients and families with regards to the cranioplasty. A point for future research is the lack of statistically significant association between ST and the cranial defect size. This seems at odds with the described radiographic findings that are intuitively expected in for large craniectomies rather than in smaller ones. Finally, ST should be considered in every craniectomized patient with arrest of rehabilitation or differed acute deficits because their symptoms are certainly reverted by cranioplasty.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

  1. , , , , , , . Effect of decompressive craniectomy on intracranial pressure and cerebrospinal compensation following traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2008;108:66-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , . Hemicraniectomy in the management of malignant middle cerebral artery infarction: Lessons from randomized, controlled trials. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5:72.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Decompressive craniectomy in diffuse traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1493-502.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , . Complications of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26:E7.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Repair of cranial defects by cranioplasty. Ann Surg. 1939;110:488-512.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Neurological susceptibility to a skull defect. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5:83.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , . Effect of cranioplasty on cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics in patients with the syndrome of the trephined. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1984;70:21-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Clinical Spectrum and Radiographic Features of the Syndrome of the Trephined. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2015;6:438-41.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    378

    PDF downloads
    435
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections