Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Minimally Invasive Thumb-sized Pterional Craniotomy for Surgical Clip Ligation of Unruptured Anterior Circulation Aneurysms
Published on: August 11, 2015
Expansive Craniotomy versus Standard Decompressive Craniectomy in Refractory Intracranial Hypertension: A Systematic
Rachel Saunders1, Jemima Rees1, Valentina Di Pietro1
1Neuroscience and Ophthalmology, Department of Inflammation and Ageing, Institute of Infection, Inflammation and Immunology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Insights
Expansive craniotomy (EC) may be a viable alternative to decompressive craniectomy (DC) for managing intracranial pressure, showing similar mortality but improved outcomes. However, EC is linked to a higher reoperation rate, necessitating further research.
Area of Science:
- Neurosurgery
- Critical Care Medicine
- Surgical Innovation
Background:
- Elevated intracranial pressure poses significant risks to mortality and outcomes following acute brain injury.
- Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a standard procedure for refractory intracranial hypertension, but necessitates a subsequent cranioplasty.
- Expansive craniotomy (EC) aims to avoid cranioplasty by partially fixing the bone flap, yet its comparative safety and efficacy remain unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and compare the safety and efficacy of expansive craniotomy (EC) versus decompressive craniectomy (DC).
- To evaluate key outcomes including mortality, reoperation rates, and neurological recovery (Glasgow Outcome Scale).
Main Methods:
- A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines, including all study types except reviews.
- Meta-analysis conducted on data from randomized controlled trials and case-control studies.
- Outcomes assessed: mortality, acute reoperation rate, and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS).
Main Results:
- No significant difference in mortality was observed between EC and DC.
- Expansive craniotomy (EC) showed a trend towards improved GOS scores, potentially influenced by selection bias.
- A marginal increase in early reoperation rates was associated with EC (risk difference 0.08, p = 0.05).
- Risk of bias in the included studies was generally moderate to high.
Conclusions:
- Existing evidence is insufficient to definitively guide clinical decisions regarding EC versus DC.
- Expansive craniotomy (EC) shows promise as an alternative to DC in select patients, despite a potential for increased acute reoperation rates.
- A robust, adequately powered randomized controlled trial is strongly recommended to rigorously evaluate expansive craniotomy (EC).
Background:
Raised intracranial pressure can have devastating consequences on mortality and outcome after acute brain injury. Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an established surgical procedure for controlling refractory intracranial hypertension; however, this requires subsequent cranioplasty. Expansive craniotomy (EC) techniques, where the bone flap is returned but only partially fixed in place, have been developed to avoid the need for cranioplasty. However, comparative safety and efficacy is not well defined.
Methods:
A systematic review to identify studies comparing EC with DC was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, including all study types except systematic/scoping reviews. Meta-analysis was performed for three outcomes (mortality, acute reoperation rate, and Glasgow Outcome Scale).
Results:
A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, and are summarized in narrative review. Eight studies were included in meta-analysis: two randomized controlled trials and six case-control studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in mortality. EC was associated with improved Glasgow Outcome Scale score (mean difference, 0.44; P < 0.05); however, this may be attributable to selection bias. There was a marginal increase in early additional surgery rates associated with EC (risk difference, 0.08; P = 0.05). Risk of bias was moderate to high across included studies.
Conclusions:
Current evidence cannot robustly inform clinical decision-making on the use of EC. Based on reports of success of EC, EC appears to be a valid alternative to DC in selected cases; however, greater acute reoperation rates because of inadequate decompression is a risk. Overall, there is strong support for an appropriately powered randomized controlled trial to robustly evaluate EC.
Related Concept Videos
Increased Intracranial Pressure l: Introduction
Increased Intracranial Pressure ll: Pathophysiology

