Object
It has recently been suggested that the degree of intracranial pressure (ICP) above the treatment goal can be estimated by the area under the curve (AUC) of ICP versus time in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective of this study was to determine whether the calculated “ICP dose”—the ICP AUC—is related to mortality rate, outcome, and Marshall CT classification.
Methods
Of 135 patients (age range 1–82 years) with severe TBI treated during a 5-year period at the authors' institution, 113 patients underwent ICP monitoring (84%). Ninety-three patients with a monitoring time > 24 hours were included for analysis of ICP AUC calculated using the trapezoidal method. Computed tomography scans were assessed according to the Marshall TBI classification. Patients with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores at 6 months and > 3 years were separated into 2 groups based on outcome.
Results
Sixty patients (65%) had ICP values > 20 mm Hg, and 12 (13%) developed severe intracranial hypertension and died secondary to herniation. A multiple regression analysis adjusting for Glasgow Coma Scale score, age, pupillary abnormalities and Injury Severity Scale score demonstrated that the ICP AUC was a significant predictor of poor outcome at 6 months (p = 0.034) and of death (p = 0.035). However, it did not predict long-term outcome (p = 0.157). The ICP AUC was significantly higher in patients with Marshall head injury Categories 3 and 4 (24 patients) than in those with Category 2 (23 patients, p = 0.025) and Category 5 (46 patients, p = 0.021) TBIs using the worst CT scan obtained.
Conclusions
The authors found a significant relationship between the dose of ICP, the worst Marshall CT score, and patient outcome, suggesting that the AUC method may be useful in refining and improving the treatment of ICP in patients with TBI.
Purpose Standard surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical disc disease has been discectomy and fusion, but the use of arthroplasty, designed to preserve motion, has increased, and most studies report clinical outcome in its favor. Few of these trials, however, blinded the patients. We, therefore, conducted the Norwegian Cervical Arthroplasty Trial, and present 2-year clinical outcome after arthroplasty or fusion. Methods This multicenter trial included 136 patients with single-level cervical disc disease. The patients were randomized to arthroplasty or fusion, and blinded to the treatment modality. The surgical team was blinded to randomization until nerve root decompression was completed. Primary outcome was the self-rated Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the numeric rating scale for pain and quality of life questionnaires Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5Dimension-3 Level. Results There was a significant improvement in the primary and all secondary outcomes from baseline to 2-year follow-up for both arthroplasty and fusion (P \ 0.001), and no observed significant between-group differences at any follow-up times. However, linear mixed model analyses, correcting for baseline values, dropouts and missing data, revealed a difference in Neck Disability Index (P = 0.049), and arm pain (P = 0.027) in favor of fusion at 2 years. The duration of surgery was longer (P \ 0.001), and the frequency of reoperations higher (P = 0.029) with arthroplasty. Conclusion The present study showed excellent clinical results and no significant difference between treatments at any scheduled follow-up. However, the rate of index level reoperations was higher and the duration of surgery longer with arthroplasty.
The results from the present study show that the NDI correlated significantly with a different quality of life and mental health measures among patients with single-level cervical disc disease and corresponding radiculopathy.
Patients with a severe head injury admitted directly to the neurosurgical department are more severely injured, more frequently get advanced medical treatment in the field, and are undergoing surgery earlier than transferred patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.