Neurosurgical Outcomes in Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries Between Service Lines: Review of a Single Institution Database

Le résumé fourni par la source

Severe traumatic injury (sTBI) continues to be a common source of morbidity and mortality. While there have been several advances in understanding the pathophysiology of this injury, the clinical outcome has remained grim. These trauma patients often require multidisciplinary care and are admitted to a surgical service line, depending on hospital policy. A retrospective chart review spanning 2019-2022 was completed using the electronic health record of the neurosurgery service. We identified 140 patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of eight or less, ages 18-99, who were admitted to a level-one trauma center in Southern California. Seventy patients were admitted under the neurosurgery service, while the other half were admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) service after initial assessment in the emergency department by both services to evaluate for multisystem injury. Between both groups, the injury severity scores that evaluated patients' overall injuries were not significantly different. The results demonstrate a significant difference in GCS change, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) change, and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) change between the two groups. Furthermore, the mortality rate differed between neurosurgical care and other service care by 27% and 51%, respectively, despite similar Injury Severity Scores (ISS) (p=0.0026). Therefore, this data demonstrates that a well-trained neurosurgeon with critical care experience can safely manage a severe traumatic brain injury patient with an isolated head injury as a primary service while in the intensive care unit. Since injury severity scores did not differ between these two service lines, we further theorize that this is likely due to a deep understanding of the nuances of neurosurgical pathophysiology and Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guidelines.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.