Background In neurosurgery, the necessity of having a drainage tube is controversial. Subgaleal fluid collection (SFC) often occurs, especially in a craniotomy near the “parietal site”. This study aimed to reassess the benefit of using a prophylactic epidural drainage (ED) and non-watertight dura suture in a craniotomy near the parietal site. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 63 consecutive patients who underwent a craniotomy near the parietal site. The patients were divided into two groups according to different period. The deal group received ED and a non-watertight dura suture (drain group, DG), the control group that did not (non-drain group, NDG). Complications and patient recovery were evaluated and analysed. Results Three patients (11.5%, 26) in DG and 20 patients (54.1%, 37) in NDG presented with SFC (p < 0.05). One patient (3.8%) in DG and three patients (8.1%) in NDG presented with subdural tensile hydrops (STH) (p > 0.05). Six developed an infection in NDG (four intracranial infections, one abscess, one pulmonary infection), while none in DG (p > 0.05) developed infection. Three (11.5%) cases in DG and one (2.7%) case in NDG had muscle strength that improved postoperatively (p > 0.05). Fifteen (57.7%) in DG and 14 (37.8%) in NDG had epileptic seizures less frequently postoperatively (p < 0.05). The average temperature (37.4 °C vs 37.6 °C, p > 0.05), the maximum temperature (37.9 °C vs 38.1 °C, p > 0.05) on 3 PODs, the postoperative hospital stay day (7.5 days vs 8.0 days, p > 0.05), and the postoperative medicine fee (¥29762.0 vs ¥28321.0, p > 0.05) were analysed. Conclusion In patients who undergo a craniotomy near the parietal site, the prophylactic use of ED and a non-watertight dura suture helps reduce SFC, infection, and control epilepsy.

Background Rebleeding can cause a catastrophic outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A clinical + morphology nomogram was promoted in our previous study to assist in discriminating the rupture intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) with a high risk of rebleeding. The aim of this study was to validate the predictive accuracy of this nomogram model. Method The patients with RIAs in two medical centers from December 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed, whose clinical and morphological parameters were collected. The Cox regression model was employed to identify the risk factors related to rebleeding after their admission. The predicting accuracy of clinical + morphological nomogram, ELAPSS score and PHASES score was compared based on the area under the curves (AUCs). Results One hundred thirty-eight patients with RIAs were finally included in this study, 20 of whom suffering from rebleeding after admission. Hypertension (hazard ratio (HR), 2.54; a confidence interval of 95% (CI), 1.01–6.40; P = 0.047), bifurcation (HR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.29–11.66; P = 0.016), and AR (HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.63–4.41; P < 0.001) were demonstrated through Cox regression analysis as the independent risk factors for rebleeding after admission. The clinical + morphological nomogram had the highest predicting accuracy (AUC, 0.939, P < 0.01), followed by the bifurcation (AUC, 0.735, P = 0.001), AR (AUC, 0.666, P = 0.018), and ELAPSS score (AUC, 0.682, P = 0.009). Hypertension (AUC, 0.693, P = 0.080) or PHASES score (AUC, 0.577, P = 0.244) could not be used to predict the risk of rebleeding after admission. The calibration curve for the probability of rebleeding showed a good agreement between the prediction through clinical + morphological nomogram and actual observation. Conclusion Hypertension, bifurcation site, and AR were independent risk factors related to the rebleeding of RIAs after admission. The clinical + morphological nomogram could help doctors to identify the high-risk RIAs with a high predictive accuracy.