Both positive DESH findings and high ICP pulse amplitude support the diagnosis of iNPH and provide additional diagnostic value for predicting shunt-responsive patients; however, high ICP amplitude was more accurate than positive DESH findings, although it is an invasive test.

Based on this literature review, we consider that, due to the specific characteristics of infectious encephalitis, especially in case of viral infection, decompressive craniectomy is probably an effective treatment when brain stem compression threatens the course of the disease. In patients with viral encephalitis, better prognosis can be expected when surgical decompression is used than when only medical treatment is provided.

The majority of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) will have normal Glasgow coma scale (GCS) of 15. Furthermore, only 5%–8% of them will be CT-positive for an mTBI. Having a useful biomarker would help clinicians evaluate a patient’s risk of developing intracranial lesions. The S100B protein is currently the most studied and promising biomarker for this purpose. Heart fatty-acid binding protein (H-FABP) has been highlighted in brain injury models and investigated as a biomarker for stroke and severe TBI, for example. Here, we evaluate the performances of S100B and H-FABP for differentiating between CT-positive and CT-negative patients. A total of 261 patients with a GCS score of 15 and at least one clinical symptom of mTBI were recruited at three different European sites. Blood samples from 172 of them were collected ≤ 6 h after trauma. Patients underwent a CT scan and were dichotomised into CT-positive and CT-negative groups for statistical analyses. H-FABP and S100B levels were measured using commercial kits, and their capacities to detect all CT-positive scans were evaluated, with sensitivity set to 100%. For patients recruited ≤ 6 h after trauma, the CT-positive group demonstrated significantly higher levels of both H-FABP (p = 0.004) and S100B (p = 0.003) than the CT-negative group. At 100% sensitivity, specificity reached 6% (95% CI 2.8–10.7) for S100B and 29% (95% CI 21.4–37.1) for H-FABP. Similar results were obtained when including all the patients recruited, i.e. hospital arrival within 24 h of trauma onset. H-FABP out-performed S100B and thus seems to be an interesting protein for detecting all CT-positive mTBI patients with a GCS score of 15 and at least one clinical symptom.

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) patients may have trauma-induced brain lesions detectable using CT scans. However, most patients will be CT-negative. There is thus a need for an additional tool to detect patients at risk. Single blood biomarkers, such as S100B and GFAP, have been widely studied in mTBI patients, but to date, none seems to perform well enough. In many different diseases, combining several biomarkers into panels has become increasingly interesting for diagnoses and to enhance classification performance. The present study evaluated 13 proteins individually—H-FABP, MMP-1, MMP-3, MMP-9, VCAM, ICAM, SAA, CRP, GSTP, NKDA, PRDX1, DJ-1 and IL-10—for their capacity to differentiate between patients with and without a brain lesion according to CT results. The best performing proteins were then compared and combined with the S100B and GFAP proteins into a CT-scan triage panel. Patients diagnosed with mTBI, with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and one additional clinical symptom were enrolled at three different European sites. A blood sample was collected at hospital admission, and a CT scan was performed. Patients were divided into two two-centre cohorts and further dichotomised into CT-positive and CT-negative groups for statistical analysis. Single markers and panels were evaluated using Cohort 1. Four proteins—H-FABP, IL-10, S100B and GFAP—showed significantly higher levels in CT-positive patients. The best-performing biomarker was H-FABP, with a specificity of 32% (95% CI 23–40) and sensitivity reaching 100%. The best-performing two-marker panel for Cohort 1, subsequently validated in Cohort 2, was a combination of H-FABP and GFAP, enhancing specificity to 46% (95% CI 36–55). When adding IL-10 to this panel, specificity reached 52% (95% CI 43–61) with 100% sensitivity. These results showed that proteins combined into panels could be used to efficiently classify CT-positive and CT-negative mTBI patients.

OBJECTIVEThe percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons.METHODSTwo of the most prominent neurosurgical journals—Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery—were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions’ region.RESULTSA total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001).CONCLUSIONSAlthough this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers’ profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates.