ObjectiveTo externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury.DesignProspective, multicentre cohort study.SettingThree university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands.ParticipantsConsecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury.ResultsFor the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold.ConclusionsApplication of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.

Background Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-018-3761-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECT The bilateral and unilateral interlaminar techniques for bilateral decompression both demonstrate good results for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Although there is some discussion about which approach is more effective, studies that directly compare these two popular techniques are rare. To address this shortcoming, this study compares postoperative functional disability, pain, and patient satisfaction among patients with single-level DLSS who underwent bilateral decompression using either a bilateral or unilateral approach. METHODS This retrospective study included patients who underwent operations between November 1, 2009, and October 1, 2011. These patients underwent single-level bilateral decompressive surgery using either the bilateral or unilateral interlaminar approach at one of 5 participating hospitals. Exclusion criteria included previous lumbar surgery, additional disc surgery, and spondylolisthesis requiring fusion surgery. Primary outcome measures included bodily pain (as reported using the visual analog scale [VAS]), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, reductions in leg and back symptoms and the patient’s general evaluation of the procedure were queried. Finally, patient satisfaction and surgical parameters were evaluated. Questionnaires were sent to each patient’s home, and electronic patient files were used to collect the data. RESULTS One hundred and seventy-five patients returned the questionnaire (74.4% response rate; 68 and 107 patients who underwent the bilateral or unilateral approach, respectively). Mean age at surgery was 68 years (range 34–89 years), and the mean follow-up period was 14.2 months (range 3.3–27.4 years). There were no significant differences in ODI (20.3 vs 22.6 for the bilateral and unilateral approaches, respectively), RMDQ (3.99 vs 4.8, respectively), or pain scores between treatment groups. Back symptoms were reduced in 74.8% (bilateral: 74.6% vs unilateral: 75%; not significant), and leg symptoms in 80.6% of the patients (bilateral: 73.1% vs unilateral: 85.4%; p = 0.048). In total, 72.1% (bilateral) and 80.0% (unilateral) of patients reported good overall treatment results (p = 0.226). Significantly more patients in the unilateral group reported a better overall satisfaction with the procedure (82.1% vs 69.1%; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS There were no differences in postoperative functional disability and pain between the surgical techniques. The significant differences in patient satisfaction and reduction in leg symptoms were unrelated to surgical technique. The overall treatment results were satisfactory. Both techniques are safe and effective options for treating patients with single-level DLSS.

No abstract