The reverse question mark and L.G. Kempe incisions for decompressive craniectomy: A case series and narrative review of the literature

Edgar G Ordóñez-Rubiano; Luisa F Figueredo; Carlos A Gamboa-Oñate; Ivo Kehayov; Jorge A Rengifo-Hipus; Ingrid J Romero-Castillo; Angie P Rodríguez-Medina; Javier G Patiño-Gomez; Oscar Zorro

doi:10.25259/SNI_59_2022

The reverse question mark and L.G. Kempe incisions for decompressive craniectomy: A case series and narrative review of the literature

Surg Neurol Int. 2022 Jul 8:13:295. doi: 10.25259/SNI_59_2022. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Edgar G Ordóñez-Rubiano¹, Luisa F Figueredo², Carlos A Gamboa-Oñate¹, Ivo Kehayov³, Jorge A Rengifo-Hipus⁴, Ingrid J Romero-Castillo⁴, Angie P Rodríguez-Medina⁴, Javier G Patiño-Gomez¹, Oscar Zorro¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital de San José - Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogota, Colombia.
² Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
³ Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
⁴ Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Hospital de San José - Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogota, Colombia.

Abstract

Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a lifesaving procedure, relieving intracranial hypertension. Conventionally, DCs are performed by a reverse question mark (RQM) incision. However, the use of the L. G. Kempe's (LGK) incision has increased in the last decade. We aim to describe the surgical nuances of the LGK and the standard RQM incisions to treat patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), empyema, and malignant ischemic stroke. Furthermore, to describe, surgical limitations, wound healing, and neurological outcomes related to each technique.

Methods: To describe a prospective acquired, case series including patients who underwent a DC using either an RQM or an LGK incision in our institution between 2019 and 2020.

Results: A total of 27 patients underwent DC. Of those, ten patients were enrolled. The mean age was 42.1 years (26-71), and 60% were male. Five patients underwent DC using a large RQM incision; three had severe TBI, one ICH, and one ischemic stroke. The other five patients underwent DC using an LGK incision (one ICH, one subdural empyema, and one ischemic stroke). About 50% of patients presented severe headaches associated with vomiting, and six presented altered mental status (drowsy or stuporous). Motor deficits were present in four cases. In patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, symptoms were directly related to the stroke location. Hospital stays varied between 13 and 22 days. No readmissions were recorded, and no fatal outcome was documented during the follow-up.

Conclusion: The utility of the LGK incision is comparable with the classic RQM incision to treat acute brain injuries, where an urgent decompression must be performed. Some of these cases include malignant ischemic strokes, ICH, and empyema. No differences were observed between both techniques in terms of prevention of scalp necrosis and general cosmetic outcomes.

Keywords: Decompressive craniectomy; Intracranial hemorrhage; Kempe; Traumatic brain injury.