Case Report | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8868/027
1 Neurosurgical Emergences in Head Trauma, Russia
*Corresponding Author: Paula Bryzgalov , Neurosurgical Emergences in Head Trauma, Russia
Citation: Paula Bryzgalov, Samual Korbolina , Neurosurgical Emergences in Head Trauma, ,DOI : 10.31579/2578-8868/027
Copyright: © 2018 Paula Bryzgalov , This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 19 January 2018 | Accepted: 02 February 2018 | Published: 16 February 2018
Keywords: neurosurgical emergencies; trauma and sports
During 1987 and 1988, the trauma service at Hahnemann University Hospital, a level I trauma center, evaluated 1,875 consecutive patients. Four hundred ninety-seven consecutive computed tomographic (CT) scans were performed to evaluate intracranial trauma in the emergency department. These patients' records were reviewed to determine the adequacy of loss of consciousness, amnesia, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and mechanism of injury in predicting intracranial findings. In 302 patients with a GCS score of 13 or greater, 55 (18%) CT scans showed abnormal findings. Eleven (4%) of these patients required neurosurgical intervention. Furthermore, patients with normal CT scans required no interventions for head trauma. Mechanism of injury directly influenced the incidence of neurosurgical intervention. Current bedside methods to evaluate patients for possible intracranial injury in our trauma patient population are inadequate. Emergency department CT scans should be performed on all patients referred to the trauma service with previously classified mild- or low-risk criteria for intracranial trauma, regardless of GCS score.
The panel identified two main groups of patients—those at high risk of intracranial injury and those at low risk of such injury — and developed a management strategy for imaging in the two groups. The high-risk group consists primarily of patients with severe open or closed-head injuries who have a constellation of findings that are usually clinically obvious. These patients are candidates for emergency CT scanning, neurosurgical consultation, or both. The low-risk group includes patients who are asymptomatic or who have one or more of the following: headache, dizziness, scalp hematoma, laceration, contusion, or abrasion. Radiographic imaging is not recommended for the low-risk group and should be omitted. An intermediate moderate-risk group is less well defined, and skull radiography in this group may sometimes be appropriate.
A prospective study of 7035 patients with head trauma at 31 hospital emergency rooms was conducted to validate the management strategy. No intracranial injuries were discovered in any of the low-risk patients. Therefore, no intracranial injury would have been missed by excluding skull radiography for low-risk patients, according to the protocol.
We conclude that use of the management strategy is safe and that it would result in a large decrease in the use of skull radiography, with concomitant reductions in unnecessary exposure to radiation and savings of millions of dollars annually.
PATIENT DISTRIBUTION OVER YEAR, WEEK, AND DAY
Relatively more patients were seen from May to September (160–190/month compared with 106–130/month October to April). June and July were peak months in the emergency room, reflecting that most cases of traumatic brain injury were recorded in this time (77 and 80/month). intracerebral haemorrhage showed peaks in spring and autumn, whereas subarachnoid haemorrhage and neoplastic diseases were evenly distributed over the year. In general, more patients were seen on Fridays and Saturdays. More patients originating from outside hospitals were seen on Fridays whereas those from within our hospitals were most frequent on Saturdays. The number of patients admitted to the emergency room was evenly distributed over the week. Patients with traumatic brain injury peaked on Sundays. Less than 50% of recorded patients were seen by 5 00 pm with most patients being seen up until 2 00 am. Most patients within our own hospitals were recorded between 6 00 pm and 9 00 pm.
Neurosurgical action is outlined in Seventy five per cent of all patients were personally seen by a neurosurgeon. Of 1361 patients examined by a neurosurgeon 64% were admitted or transferred from another service to a neurosurgical ward. Every second admission carried an indication for surgical intervention. Twenty five per cent of patients remained on their non-neurosurgical wards, only 10% had an elective indication for later surgery. The remaining 11% of the patients were sent back to an outside hospital, a third of them immediately after surgical treatment.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,