4.4 Article

Outcome after severe brain trauma associated with epidural hematoma

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 199-207

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-012-1652-y

关键词

Traumatic brain injury, severe; Epidural hematoma, outcome; Prognostic scores

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to identify factors contributing to outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) associated with epidural hematoma (EDH). Between 02/2002 and 4/2010 17 Austrian centers prospectively enrolled 863 patients with moderate and severe TBI into observational studies. Data on accident, treatment, and outcomes were collected. Data sets from patients who had severe TBI (=Glasgow Coma Scale score < 9) and EDH were selected. Six-month outcomes were classified as favorable if Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were 5 or 4, and were classified as unfavorable if GOS scores were 3 or less. The Rotterdam score was used to classify computed tomography (CT) findings; the scores published by Hukkelhoven et al. (J Neurotrauma 22:1025-1039, 2005) were used to estimate predicted rates of death and of unfavorable outcomes. Univariate (Fisher's exact test, t test, Chi(2)-test) and multivariate (logistic regression) statistics were used to identify factors associated with hospital mortality and favorable outcome. Of the 738 patients with severe TBI 159 (21.5 %) had EDH. Of these, 49 (30.8 %) died in the hospital, 21 (13.2 %) survived with unfavorable outcome, 82 (51.6 %) with favorable outcome; long-term outcome was unknown in 7 survivors (4.4 %). Mortality rates predicted by the Rotterdam score showed good correlation with observed mortality rates. According to the Hukkelhoven scores, observed/predicted ratios for mortality and unfavorable outcome were 0.94 and 0.97, respectively. Age, severity of TBI, and neurological status were the main factors influencing outcomes after severe TBI associated with EDH. We were unable to demonstrate significant effects of treatment factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据