A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.Additional co-authors: Endre Czeiter, Marek Czosnyka, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Jens P Dreier, Ann-Christine Duhaime, Ari Ercole, Thomas A van Essen, Valery L Feigin, Guoyi Gao, Joseph Giacino, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Russell L Gruen, Deepak Gupta, Jed A Hartings, Sean Hill, Ji-yao Jiang, Naomi Ketharanathan, Erwin J O Kompanje, Linda Lanyon, Steven Laureys, Fiona Lecky, Harvey Levin, Hester F Lingsma, Marc Maegele, Marek Majdan, Geoffrey Manley, Jill Marsteller, Luciana Mascia, Charles McFadyen, Stefania Mondello, Virginia Newcombe, Aarno Palotie, Paul M Parizel, Wilco Peul, James Piercy, Suzanne Polinder, Louis Puybasset, Todd E Rasmussen, Rolf Rossaint, Peter Smielewski, Jeannette Söderberg, Simon J Stanworth, Murray B Stein, Nicole von Steinbüchel, William Stewart, Ewout W Steyerberg, Nino Stocchetti, Anneliese Synnot, Braden Te Ao, Olli Tenovuo, Alice Theadom, Dick Tibboel, Walter Videtta, Kevin K W Wang, W Huw Williams, Kristine Yaffe for the InTBIR Participants and Investigator

No abstract

Despite lower indices of injury severity, even after taking account of comorbidities, mortality was significantly increased in elderly patients admitted to a trauma center with rib fractures.

Introduction Various strategies have been proposed for postoperative pain control. Among those, intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVLI) has gained in interest. However, its clinical benefit remains unclear. This systematic review is an evaluation of the analgesic efficacy and safety of IVLI during general anesthesia. Methods A systematic search was performed using MED-LINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and SCOPUS databases, likewise, grey literature. The review included all randomized controlled trials that used a placebo or any comparator and evaluated IVLI during general anesthesia for any type of surgery. Primary outcomes were pain control and opioid requirement. Secondary outcomes were mortality, length of stay, ileus recovery time, nausea/vomiting, and adverse events. Random effects models were used and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 index. to -5.56), time to first flatus (WMD -7.62 hr, 95% CI -10.78 to -4.45), time to first feces (WMD -10.71 hr, 95% CI -16.14 to -5.28), nausea/vomiting (risk ratios = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.90), and hospital length of stay (WMD -0.17 days, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.07). Abdominal surgery was strongly associated with benefit. For the 12 studies that systematically screened adverse events, the Results 123Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth (2011) 58:22-37 DOI 10.1007/s12630-010-9407-0 incidence of cardiac and neurologic adverse events was comparable. Eight studies observed toxic plasma levels. Discussion Perioperative IVLI reduced postoperative pain and opioid requirement, as well as ileus recovery time, hospital length of stay, and nausea/vomiting. Intravenous lidocaine infusion was effective mainly in abdominal surgery populations. Considering that toxic levels were detected and that adverse events were not systematically screened for in most studies, dose and safety of IVLI should be established before recommending its use. RésuméIntroduction Plusieurs strate´gies ont e´te´propose´es pour le contrôle de la douleur postope´ratoire. Parmi ces strate´gies, la lidocaı¨ne par voie intraveineuse suscite un inte´reˆt croissant. Toutefois, ses avantages cliniques demeurent peu clairs. Cette revue me´thodique est une e´valuation de l'efficaciteá nalge´sique et de l'innocuite´de la lidocaı¨ne par voie intraveineuse pendant l'anesthe´sie ge´ne´rale. Méthode Une recherche me´thodique a e´te´re´alise´e dans les bases de donne´es MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane et SCOPUS ainsi que dans la litte´rature grise. Cette revue a tenu compte de toutes les e´tudes randomise´es contrôle´es ayant utilise´un placebo ou un traitement de re´fe´rence et e´value´la lidocaı¨ne par voie intraveineuse pendant l'anesthe´sie ge´ne´rale, quel que soit le type de chirurgie. Les principaux crite`res d'e´valuation e´taient le contrôle de la douleur et le besoin en opioı¨des. Les crite`res d'e´valuation secondaires e´taient la mortalite´, la dure´e d'hospitalisation, le temps de re´cupe´ration du transit intestinal, les nause´es et vomissements et les e´ve´nements inde´sirables. Des mode`les a`effets ale´atoires ont e´teú tilise´s e...