CLINICAL, PARACLINICAL, AND CT IMAGING CHARACTERISTICS IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY UNDERGOING DECOMPRESSIVE CRANIECTOMY
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To describe the clinical, paraclinical, and computed tomography (CT) characteristics of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) who were indicated for decompressive craniectomy at the time of hospital admission. Subjects and Methods: A prospective descriptive case series study was conducted on all patients with severe TBI who met the criteria for decompressive craniectomy upon admission from March 2024 to December 2024. Results: Among 160 patients included, most were male, within working age, and road traffic accidents were the predominant cause. Clinical characteristics revealed that the majority had severe trauma (Glasgow Coma Scale 6–8). Anisocoria was present in one-fourth of cases, and hemiparesis was observed in less than 20% of patients. CT scan findings at admission showed that most patients had a single lesion, predominantly cerebral contusion. Subarachnoid hemorrhage was present in nearly all cases. Over three-quarters had midline shift >5 mm, 80% showed basal cistern compression, and 60% developed new hematomas postoperatively. Factors associated with injury severity included age, presence of anisocoria, degree of midline shift, and basal cistern compression. Conclusion: Severe TBI remains a complex condition that challenges treatment decisions. Therefore, neurosurgeons must carefully evaluate the interrelated clinical, paraclinical, and imaging features, as these often present with high variability and clinical ambiguity.
Article Details
Keywords
Decompressive craniectomy, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Rotterdam score, Helsinki score.
References
2. Lương Minh Anh, Hà Anh Đức. Tử vong do tại nạn thương tích ở người cao tuổi tại Việt Nam giai đoạn 2010 - 2014. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2017;01:264-268.
3. Steyerberg EW, Mushkudiani N, Perel P, et al. Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and International Validation of Prognostic Scores Based on Admission Characteristics. PLOS Med. 2008;5(8):e165. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050165
4. Rafay M, Gulzar F, Iqbal N, Sharif S. Prognostic computed tomography Scores in traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;195: 105957. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2020. 105957
5. Maas AIR, Menon DK, Adelson PD, et al. Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(12):987-1048. doi:10. 1016/S1474-4422(17)30371-X
6. Peeters W, van den Brande R, Polinder S, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015;157(10): 1683-1696. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2512-7
7. Hukkelhoven CWPM, Steyerberg EW, Rampen AJJ, et al. Patient age and outcome following severe traumatic brain injury: an analysis of 5600 patients. J Neurosurg. 2003; 99(4): 666-673. doi:10.3171/jns.2003.99. 4.0666
8. Mauritz W, Brazinova A, Majdan M, Leitgeb J. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2014;126(1-2):42-52. doi:10.1007/s00508-013-0456-6
9. Thelin EP, Nelson DW, Bellander BM. A review of the clinical utility of serum S100B protein levels in the assessment of traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017;159(2): 209-225. doi:10.1007/s00701-016-3046-3