RESUMEN
Background: Low-energy penetrating head injuries caused by arrows are relatively uncommon. The objective of this report is to describe a case presentation and management of self-inflicted intracranial injury using a crossbow and to provide a relevant literature review. Case Report: A 31-year-old man with a previous psychiatric history sustained a self-inflicted injury using a crossbow that he bought from a department store. The patient arrived neurologically intact at the hospital, fully awake and oriented. He was not able to verbalize due to immobilization of the jaw as well as fixation of his tongue to his hard palate secondary to the position of the arrow. The trajectory of the object showed an entry point at the floor of the oral cavity and an exit through the calvarium just off the midline. The oral and nasal cavity, along with the palate and, the skull base of the anterior cranial fossa, and the left frontal lobe, were all breached. No vascular injury was identified clinically or in imaging. The arrow was surgically removed in the operating room after establishing an elective surgical airway. The floor of the mouth, tongue, and palate was repaired next. A planned delayed cerebrospinal fluid leak repair was performed. The patient made a substantial recovery and was discharged home in good functional status. A systematic literature search was done using Medline for cases with intracranial injuries related to crossbows to review and appraise the available literature. Conclusion: A thorough assessment in a multidisciplinary trauma center and the availability of a subspecialty care team, including neurosurgery and otolaryngology, are paramount in such cases. The vascular imaging should be done before and after any planned surgical intervention. Emergent and elective surgical airway management should be considered and made available throughout the stabilization and care of the acute injury. Surgical management should be planned to remove the object with adequate exposure to facilitate visualization, removal, and the possible need for further intervention, including anticipating aerodigestive and vascular injuries on removal. Finally, access to weapons and the relation to psychiatric illness should not be overlooked, as many reported cases are self-harming in nature.
RESUMEN
Background: Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a major concern after posterior fossa surgery with significant clinical implications. It has been postulated that replacing the bone flap, performing a craniotomy, would reinforce the surgical closure and decrease rates of CSF leak. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the rate of CSF leak after posterior fossa craniotomies versus craniectomies. Methods: Three databases were searched for English studies comparing the primary outcome, rate of CSF leak, after adult posterior fossa craniotomies versus craniectomies. Secondary outcomes included the rate of postoperative pseudomeningocele formation, CSF leak and pseudomeningocele formation, CSF diversion, revision surgery, and infection. Pooled estimates and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using Review Manager 5.4, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 1250 patients (635 craniotomies and 615 craniectomies), from nine studies, were included in the final analysis. Even though rates of CSF leak favored craniotomies, the difference did not reach statistical significance in our pooled analysis (Risk Ratio: 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.45-1.14, p-value = 0.15, Heterogeneity I-squared = 0%). On the other hand, comparing the rates of pseudomeningocele formation and CSF leak, as a combined outcome, or pseudomeningocele formation only showed a significant difference favoring craniotomies. The quality of evidence in this meta-analysis was graded as having a high risk of bias based on the risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of exposure criteria. Conclusion: Based on evidence with high risk of bias, rates of postoperative CSF leak and pseudomeningocele formation favored posterior fossa craniotomies over craniectomies. Further research with more robust methodology is required to validate these findings.
