Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · J Neurol Surg Rep 2025; 86(02): e77-e82
DOI: 10.1055/a-2561-7951
Invited Report

The Question Mark Question: Wound Healing after Hemicraniectomy

Grace R. Fassina 
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
,
Emily E. Nguyen
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
,
David Cho
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
,
Drake J. Williams
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
,
Alexander R. Evans 
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
,
Panayiotis E. Pelargos
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
,
Christopher S. Graffeo
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction

The reverse question mark (RQM) incision is the conventional scalp flap technique incorporated during decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) operations. Recently, the retroauricular (RA) incision emerged as a possible alternative. We sought to assess the contemporary literature regarding postoperative outcomes following RQM or RA for DHC and subsequent cranioplasty.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes after primary DHC and secondary cranioplasty for both RQM and RA were included in a meta-analysis of proportions performed using random-effects modeling.

Results

Five manuscripts representing a total of 511 patients met the inclusion criteria. No difference was observed in the rate of primary surgical site infection (SSI) after RQM as compared with RA (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.92–2.92). Similarly, based on those four studies reporting SSI data after cranioplasty, no difference was detected in secondary SSI rates between RQM and RA (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 0.79–4.72). Patients who underwent primary RQM had increased odds of undergoing cranioplasty compared with patients who had received a primary RA (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.03–2.39).

Conclusion

This novel systematic review and meta-analysis reported postoperative outcomes after DHC using either the RQM or RA incision technique. No significant difference was noted in SSI after either the primary decompression or the secondary cranioplasty. These findings support the use of either technique in routine practice, as guided by surgeon preference or other clinical considerations, such as superficial temporal artery preservation for an unrelated future indication.

Keywords

reverse question mark - retroauricular - wound complications - decompressive hemicraniectomy


Publication History

Received: 21 September 2024

Accepted: 25 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 March 2025

Article published online:
09 April 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Kurland DB, Khaladj-Ghom A, Stokum JA. et al. Complications associated with decompressive craniectomy: a systematic review. Neurocrit Care 2015; 23 (02) 292-304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Quinn TM, Taylor JJ, Magarik JA, Vought E, Kindy MS, Ellegala DB. Decompressive craniectomy: technical note. Acta Neurol Scand 2011; 123 (04) 239-244
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dowlati E, Mortazavi A, Keating G. et al. The retroauricular incision as an effective and safe alternative incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2021; 20 (06) 549-558
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Takanari K, Araki Y, Okamoto S. et al. Operative wound-related complications after cranial revascularization surgeries. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (05) 1145-1150
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Lyon KA, Patel NP, Zhang Y, Huang JH, Feng D. Novel hemicraniectomy technique for malignant middle cerebral artery infarction: technical note. Opera Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019; 17 (03) 273-276
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hoffman H, Draytsel DY, Beutler T. Comparison of retroauricular and reverse question mark incisions for decompressive hemicraniectomy. World Neurosurg 2023; 24: S1878
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Veldeman M, Daleiden L, Hamou H, Höllig A, Clusmann H. An altered posterior question-mark incision is associated with a reduced infection rate of cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy. J Neurosurg 2020; 134 (03) 1262-1270
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Früh A, Zdunczyk A, Wolf S. et al. Craniectomy size and decompression of the temporal base using the altered posterior question-mark incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy. Sci Rep 2023; 13 (01) 11419
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nerntengian N, Abboud T, Stepniewski A, Felmerer G, Rohde V, Tanrikulu L. Tissue healing in hemicraniectomy. Cureus 2022; 14 (09) e29260
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Veldeman M. Response to the letter to the editor “The posterior question mark incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy”. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2022; 164 (06) 1661-1662
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Brown NJ, Gendreau J, Rahmani R, Catapano JS, Lawton MT. Scalp incision technique for decompressive hemicraniectomy: comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the reverse question mark versus alternative retroauricular and Kempe incision techniques. Neurosurg Rev 2024; 47 (01) 79
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar