Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury
Background Decompressive craniectomy is an important surgical treatment for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several reports have been published on the efficacy of non-watertight sutures in duraplasty performed in decompressive craniectomy. This study sought to determine the safety...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0232561-e0232561 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0232561 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | e0232561 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Jeong, Tae Seok Yee, Gi Taek Lim, Tae Gyu Kim, Woo Kyung Yoo, Chan Jong Grasso, Giovanni |
description | Background Decompressive craniectomy is an important surgical treatment for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several reports have been published on the efficacy of non-watertight sutures in duraplasty performed in decompressive craniectomy. This study sought to determine the safety and feasibility of the non-suture dural closure technique in decompressive craniectomy. Methods A total of 106 patients were enrolled at a single trauma center between January 2017 and December 2018. We retrospectively collected data and classified the patients into non-suture and suture duraplasty craniectomy groups. We compared the characteristics of patients and their intra/postoperative findings such as operative time, blood loss, imaging findings, complications, and Glasgow Outcome Scale scores. Results There were 37 and 69 patients in the non-suture and suture duraplasty groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning general characteristics. The operative time was significantly lower in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (150 min vs. 205 min; p = 0.002). Furthermore, blood loss was significantly less severe in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (1000 mL vs. 1500 mL; p = 0.028). There were no other significant differences. Conclusion Non-suture duraplasty involved shorter operative times and less severe blood losses than suture duraplasty. Other complications and prognoses were similar across groups. Therefore, the non-suture duraplasty in decompressive craniectomy is a safe and feasible surgical technique. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0232561 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2449454663</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A637815170</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c78172d3bf724d48b5638e8d5d737c44</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A637815170</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-5d1fb665c0b5e2d211d53e80de9146e62c23a6f0cb497dec9882510cc57a397c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7jr6DQQLgujDjLm3fRGWZdWBhQVvryFNTmcytMmYpKvz7c04VbayD5KHhJPf-Z9LcoriOUYrTCv8dufH4FS_2nsHK0Qo4QI_KM5xQ8lSEEQf3jmfFU9i3CHEaS3E4-KMUkSzCD0v4lXXWa30oVTOlFF1kA6l70oD2g_7ADHaWyh1UM6CTn44lD9s2pbOu2Uc0xigNGNQ-17F7GdduVfJgkvxhKWgxiFbdNkGlW-t243h8LR41Kk-wrNpXxRf3199ufy4vL75sL68uF5qIZq05AZ3rRBco5YDMQRjwynUyECDmQBBNKFKdEi3rKlyvk1dE46R1rxStKk0XRQvTrr73kc59StKwljDOBOCZmJ9IoxXO7kPdlDhIL2y8rfBh41UIaffg9RVjStiaNtVhBlWt1zQGmrDTUUrzVjWejdFG9sBjM5dCKqfic5vnN3Kjb-VFWcMZbVF8XoSCP77CDHJwUYNfa8c-PGUd5NfkPKMvvwHvb-6idqoXIB1nc9x9VFUXgia6-G4Qpla3UPlZWCwOn-uzmb7zOHNzCEzCX6mjRpjlOvPn_6fvfk2Z1_dYbeg-rSNvh-T9S7OQXYCdfAxBuj-NhkjeZyNP92Qx9mQ02zQX3thARk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2449454663</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Jeong, Tae Seok ; Yee, Gi Taek ; Lim, Tae Gyu ; Kim, Woo Kyung ; Yoo, Chan Jong ; Grasso, Giovanni</creator><contributor>Grasso, Giovanni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jeong, Tae Seok ; Yee, Gi Taek ; Lim, Tae Gyu ; Kim, Woo Kyung ; Yoo, Chan Jong ; Grasso, Giovanni ; Grasso, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><description>Background Decompressive craniectomy is an important surgical treatment for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several reports have been published on the efficacy of non-watertight sutures in duraplasty performed in decompressive craniectomy. This study sought to determine the safety and feasibility of the non-suture dural closure technique in decompressive craniectomy. Methods A total of 106 patients were enrolled at a single trauma center between January 2017 and December 2018. We retrospectively collected data and classified the patients into non-suture and suture duraplasty craniectomy groups. We compared the characteristics of patients and their intra/postoperative findings such as operative time, blood loss, imaging findings, complications, and Glasgow Outcome Scale scores. Results There were 37 and 69 patients in the non-suture and suture duraplasty groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning general characteristics. The operative time was significantly lower in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (150 min vs. 205 min; p = 0.002). Furthermore, blood loss was significantly less severe in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (1000 mL vs. 1500 mL; p = 0.028). There were no other significant differences. Conclusion Non-suture duraplasty involved shorter operative times and less severe blood losses than suture duraplasty. Other complications and prognoses were similar across groups. Therefore, the non-suture duraplasty in decompressive craniectomy is a safe and feasible surgical technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232561</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33031373</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Antibiotics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Blood ; Brain ; Brain injuries ; Care and treatment ; Cerebrospinal fluid ; Complications ; Craniotomy ; Dura mater ; Feasibility ; Head injuries ; Hematoma ; Hospital costs ; Infections ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Neuroimaging ; Neurosurgery ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Prognosis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Safety ; Skull ; Sutures ; Trauma ; Traumatic brain injury ; Wound dehiscence</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0232561-e0232561</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Jeong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Jeong et al 2020 Jeong et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-5d1fb665c0b5e2d211d53e80de9146e62c23a6f0cb497dec9882510cc57a397c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-5d1fb665c0b5e2d211d53e80de9146e62c23a6f0cb497dec9882510cc57a397c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8706-7253 ; 0000-0001-5877-0647</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544056/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544056/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Grasso, Giovanni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jeong, Tae Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Gi Taek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Tae Gyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Woo Kyung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoo, Chan Jong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grasso, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Background Decompressive craniectomy is an important surgical treatment for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several reports have been published on the efficacy of non-watertight sutures in duraplasty performed in decompressive craniectomy. This study sought to determine the safety and feasibility of the non-suture dural closure technique in decompressive craniectomy. Methods A total of 106 patients were enrolled at a single trauma center between January 2017 and December 2018. We retrospectively collected data and classified the patients into non-suture and suture duraplasty craniectomy groups. We compared the characteristics of patients and their intra/postoperative findings such as operative time, blood loss, imaging findings, complications, and Glasgow Outcome Scale scores. Results There were 37 and 69 patients in the non-suture and suture duraplasty groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning general characteristics. The operative time was significantly lower in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (150 min vs. 205 min; p = 0.002). Furthermore, blood loss was significantly less severe in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (1000 mL vs. 1500 mL; p = 0.028). There were no other significant differences. Conclusion Non-suture duraplasty involved shorter operative times and less severe blood losses than suture duraplasty. Other complications and prognoses were similar across groups. Therefore, the non-suture duraplasty in decompressive craniectomy is a safe and feasible surgical technique.</description><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Blood</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain injuries</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cerebrospinal fluid</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Craniotomy</subject><subject>Dura mater</subject><subject>Feasibility</subject><subject>Head injuries</subject><subject>Hematoma</subject><subject>Hospital costs</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Skull</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Traumatic brain injury</subject><subject>Wound dehiscence</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7jr6DQQLgujDjLm3fRGWZdWBhQVvryFNTmcytMmYpKvz7c04VbayD5KHhJPf-Z9LcoriOUYrTCv8dufH4FS_2nsHK0Qo4QI_KM5xQ8lSEEQf3jmfFU9i3CHEaS3E4-KMUkSzCD0v4lXXWa30oVTOlFF1kA6l70oD2g_7ADHaWyh1UM6CTn44lD9s2pbOu2Uc0xigNGNQ-17F7GdduVfJgkvxhKWgxiFbdNkGlW-t243h8LR41Kk-wrNpXxRf3199ufy4vL75sL68uF5qIZq05AZ3rRBco5YDMQRjwynUyECDmQBBNKFKdEi3rKlyvk1dE46R1rxStKk0XRQvTrr73kc59StKwljDOBOCZmJ9IoxXO7kPdlDhIL2y8rfBh41UIaffg9RVjStiaNtVhBlWt1zQGmrDTUUrzVjWejdFG9sBjM5dCKqfic5vnN3Kjb-VFWcMZbVF8XoSCP77CDHJwUYNfa8c-PGUd5NfkPKMvvwHvb-6idqoXIB1nc9x9VFUXgia6-G4Qpla3UPlZWCwOn-uzmb7zOHNzCEzCX6mjRpjlOvPn_6fvfk2Z1_dYbeg-rSNvh-T9S7OQXYCdfAxBuj-NhkjeZyNP92Qx9mQ02zQX3thARk</recordid><startdate>20201008</startdate><enddate>20201008</enddate><creator>Jeong, Tae Seok</creator><creator>Yee, Gi Taek</creator><creator>Lim, Tae Gyu</creator><creator>Kim, Woo Kyung</creator><creator>Yoo, Chan Jong</creator><creator>Grasso, Giovanni</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8706-7253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-0647</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201008</creationdate><title>Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury</title><author>Jeong, Tae Seok ; Yee, Gi Taek ; Lim, Tae Gyu ; Kim, Woo Kyung ; Yoo, Chan Jong ; Grasso, Giovanni</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-5d1fb665c0b5e2d211d53e80de9146e62c23a6f0cb497dec9882510cc57a397c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Blood</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain injuries</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cerebrospinal fluid</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Craniotomy</topic><topic>Dura mater</topic><topic>Feasibility</topic><topic>Head injuries</topic><topic>Hematoma</topic><topic>Hospital costs</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Skull</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Traumatic brain injury</topic><topic>Wound dehiscence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jeong, Tae Seok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Gi Taek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Tae Gyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Woo Kyung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoo, Chan Jong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grasso, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jeong, Tae Seok</au><au>Yee, Gi Taek</au><au>Lim, Tae Gyu</au><au>Kim, Woo Kyung</au><au>Yoo, Chan Jong</au><au>Grasso, Giovanni</au><au>Grasso, Giovanni</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2020-10-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0232561</spage><epage>e0232561</epage><pages>e0232561-e0232561</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Background Decompressive craniectomy is an important surgical treatment for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Several reports have been published on the efficacy of non-watertight sutures in duraplasty performed in decompressive craniectomy. This study sought to determine the safety and feasibility of the non-suture dural closure technique in decompressive craniectomy. Methods A total of 106 patients were enrolled at a single trauma center between January 2017 and December 2018. We retrospectively collected data and classified the patients into non-suture and suture duraplasty craniectomy groups. We compared the characteristics of patients and their intra/postoperative findings such as operative time, blood loss, imaging findings, complications, and Glasgow Outcome Scale scores. Results There were 37 and 69 patients in the non-suture and suture duraplasty groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning general characteristics. The operative time was significantly lower in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (150 min vs. 205 min; p = 0.002). Furthermore, blood loss was significantly less severe in the non-suture duraplasty group than in the suture duraplasty group (1000 mL vs. 1500 mL; p = 0.028). There were no other significant differences. Conclusion Non-suture duraplasty involved shorter operative times and less severe blood losses than suture duraplasty. Other complications and prognoses were similar across groups. Therefore, the non-suture duraplasty in decompressive craniectomy is a safe and feasible surgical technique.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33031373</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0232561</doi><tpages>e0232561</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8706-7253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-0647</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0232561-e0232561 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2449454663 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Antibiotics Biology and Life Sciences Blood Brain Brain injuries Care and treatment Cerebrospinal fluid Complications Craniotomy Dura mater Feasibility Head injuries Hematoma Hospital costs Infections Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Neuroimaging Neurosurgery Patient outcomes Patients Prognosis Research and Analysis Methods Safety Skull Sutures Trauma Traumatic brain injury Wound dehiscence |
title | Efficacy and safety of decompressive craniectomy with non-suture duraplasty in patients with traumatic brain injury |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T08%3A21%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20and%20safety%20of%20decompressive%20craniectomy%20with%20non-suture%20duraplasty%20in%20patients%20with%20traumatic%20brain%20injury&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Jeong,%20Tae%20Seok&rft.date=2020-10-08&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0232561&rft.epage=e0232561&rft.pages=e0232561-e0232561&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0232561&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA637815170%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2449454663&rft_id=info:pmid/33031373&rft_galeid=A637815170&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c78172d3bf724d48b5638e8d5d737c44&rfr_iscdi=true |