• Evan M Krueger, Ronald J Benveniste, Victor M Lu, Ruby R Taylor, Rahul Kumar, Joacir G Cordeiro, and Jonathan R Jagid.
• 1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
• J. Neurosurg. 2023 Feb 1; 138 (2): 437445437-445.

ObjectiveA carefully selected subset of civilian cranial gunshot wound (CGSW) patients may be treated with simple wound closure (SWC) as a proactive therapy, but the appropriate clinical scenario for using this strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare SWC and surgery patients in terms of their neurological outcomes and complications, including infections, seizures, and reoperations.MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective review of the prospectively maintained institutional traumatic brain injury and trauma registries. Included were adults who sustained an acute CGSW defined as suspected or confirmed dural penetration. Excluded were nonfirearm penetrating injuries, patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3, patients with an initial GCS score of 4 and nonreactive pupils, and patients who died within 48 hours of presentation.ResultsA total of 67 patients were included; 17 (25.4%) were treated with SWC and 50 (74.6%) were treated with surgery. The SWC group had a lower incidence of radiographic mass effect (3/17 [17.6%] SWC vs 31/50 [62%] surgery; absolute difference 44.4, 95% CI -71.9 to 16.8; p = 0.002) and lower incidence of involvement of the frontal sinus (0/17 [0%] SWC vs 14/50 [28%] surgery; absolute difference 28, 95% CI -50.4 to 5.6; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the frequency of Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended scores ≥ 5 between the SWC and surgery groups at 30 days (4/11 [36.4%] SWC vs 12/35 [34.3%] surgery; OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.3-4.5; p > 0.99), 60 days (2/7 [28.6%] SWC vs 8/26 [30.8%] surgery; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.3-3.4; p > 0.99), and 90 days (3/8 [37.5%] SWC vs 12/26 [46.2%] surgery; OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.1-3.6; p > 0.99). There were no differences in the incidence of infections (1/17 [5.9%] SWC vs 6/50 [12%] surgery; OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.1-4.1; p = 0.67), CSF fistulas (2/11 [11.6%] SWC vs 3/50 [6%] surgery; OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.3-13.7; p = 0.60), seizures (3/17 [17.6%] SWC vs 9/50 [18%] surgery; OR 1, 95% CI 0.2-4.1; p > 0.99), and reoperations (3/17 [17.6%] SWC vs 4/50 [8%] surgery; OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.5-12.4; p = 0.36) between the SWC and surgery groups.ConclusionsThere were important clinically relevant differences between the SWC and surgery groups. SWC can be considered a safe and efficacious proactive therapy in a carefully selected subset of civilian CGSW patients.

18 keywords...

hide…