Cargando…

Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis

Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) with reduced cerebral perfusion pressure is a well-known cause of secondary brain injury. Previously, there have been some reports describing different supra- and infratentorial ICP measurements depending on the location of the mass effect. Therefore, we aimed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Won, Sae-Yeon, Dubinski, Daniel, Hagemeier, Jonas, Behmanesh, Bedjan, Trnovec, Svorad, Bernstock, Joshua D., Freiman, Thomas M., Gessler, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35118578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01746-y
_version_ 1784719200613302272
author Won, Sae-Yeon
Dubinski, Daniel
Hagemeier, Jonas
Behmanesh, Bedjan
Trnovec, Svorad
Bernstock, Joshua D.
Freiman, Thomas M.
Gessler, Florian
author_facet Won, Sae-Yeon
Dubinski, Daniel
Hagemeier, Jonas
Behmanesh, Bedjan
Trnovec, Svorad
Bernstock, Joshua D.
Freiman, Thomas M.
Gessler, Florian
author_sort Won, Sae-Yeon
collection PubMed
description Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) with reduced cerebral perfusion pressure is a well-known cause of secondary brain injury. Previously, there have been some reports describing different supra- and infratentorial ICP measurements depending on the location of the mass effect. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the issue of optimal ICP monitoring in the infratentorial mass lesion. A literature search of electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE) was performed from January 1969 until February 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two assessors are independently screened for eligible studies reporting the use of simultaneous ICP monitoring in the supra- and infratentorial compartments. For quality assessment of those studies, the New Castle Ottawa Scale was used. The primary outcome was to evaluate the value of supra- and infratentorial ICP measurement, and the secondary outcome was to determine the time threshold until equalization of both values. Current evidence surrounding infratentorial ICP measurement was found to be low to very low quality according to New Castle Ottawa Scale. Eight studies were included in the systematic review, four of them containing human subjects encompassing 27 patients with infratentorial pathology. The pooled data demonstrated significantly higher infratentorial ICP values than supratentorial ICP values 12 h after onset (p < 0.05, 95% CI 3.82–5.38) up to 24 h after onset (p < 0.05; CI 1.14–3.98). After 48–72 h, both ICP measurements equilibrated showing no significant difference. Further, four studies containing 26 pigs and eight dogs showed a simultaneous increase of supra- and infratentorial ICP value according to the increase of supratentorial mass volume; however, there was a significant difference towards lower ICP in the infratentorial compartment compared to the supratentorial compartment. The transtentorial gradient leads to a significant discrepancy between supra- and infratentorial ICP monitoring. Therefore, infratentorial ICP monitoring is warranted in case of posterior fossa lesions for at least 48 h.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9160102
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91601022022-06-03 Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis Won, Sae-Yeon Dubinski, Daniel Hagemeier, Jonas Behmanesh, Bedjan Trnovec, Svorad Bernstock, Joshua D. Freiman, Thomas M. Gessler, Florian Neurosurg Rev Review Elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) with reduced cerebral perfusion pressure is a well-known cause of secondary brain injury. Previously, there have been some reports describing different supra- and infratentorial ICP measurements depending on the location of the mass effect. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the issue of optimal ICP monitoring in the infratentorial mass lesion. A literature search of electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE) was performed from January 1969 until February 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two assessors are independently screened for eligible studies reporting the use of simultaneous ICP monitoring in the supra- and infratentorial compartments. For quality assessment of those studies, the New Castle Ottawa Scale was used. The primary outcome was to evaluate the value of supra- and infratentorial ICP measurement, and the secondary outcome was to determine the time threshold until equalization of both values. Current evidence surrounding infratentorial ICP measurement was found to be low to very low quality according to New Castle Ottawa Scale. Eight studies were included in the systematic review, four of them containing human subjects encompassing 27 patients with infratentorial pathology. The pooled data demonstrated significantly higher infratentorial ICP values than supratentorial ICP values 12 h after onset (p < 0.05, 95% CI 3.82–5.38) up to 24 h after onset (p < 0.05; CI 1.14–3.98). After 48–72 h, both ICP measurements equilibrated showing no significant difference. Further, four studies containing 26 pigs and eight dogs showed a simultaneous increase of supra- and infratentorial ICP value according to the increase of supratentorial mass volume; however, there was a significant difference towards lower ICP in the infratentorial compartment compared to the supratentorial compartment. The transtentorial gradient leads to a significant discrepancy between supra- and infratentorial ICP monitoring. Therefore, infratentorial ICP monitoring is warranted in case of posterior fossa lesions for at least 48 h. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9160102/ /pubmed/35118578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01746-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Won, Sae-Yeon
Dubinski, Daniel
Hagemeier, Jonas
Behmanesh, Bedjan
Trnovec, Svorad
Bernstock, Joshua D.
Freiman, Thomas M.
Gessler, Florian
Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort intracranial pressure monitoring in posterior fossa lesions—systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160102/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35118578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01746-y
work_keys_str_mv AT wonsaeyeon intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dubinskidaniel intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hagemeierjonas intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT behmaneshbedjan intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT trnovecsvorad intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bernstockjoshuad intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT freimanthomasm intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gesslerflorian intracranialpressuremonitoringinposteriorfossalesionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis