Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma: a CENTER-TBI study.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (< 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6-1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (< 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4-0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.

Long-term outcome after severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Expectation of long-term outcome is an important factor in treatment decision-making after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). Conclusive long-term outcome data substantiating these decisions is nowadays lacking. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the scientific literature on long-term outcome after sTBI. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed from 2008 to 2020. Studies were included when reporting long-term outcome ≥ 2 years after sTBI (GCS 3-8 or AIS head score ≥ 4), using standardized outcome measures. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the QUIPS tool. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies were included. Studies showed substantial variation in study objectives and study methodology. GOS-E (n = 12) and GOS (n = 8) were the most frequently used outcome measures. Mortality was reported in 46% of patients (range 18-75%). Unfavourable outcome rates ranged from 29 to 100% and full recovery was seen in 21-27% of patients. Most surviving patients reported SF-36 scores lower than the general population. CONCLUSION: Literature on long-term outcome after sTBI was limited and heterogeneous. Mortality and unfavourable outcome rates were high and persisting sequelae on multiple domains common. Nonetheless, a considerable proportion of survivors achieved favourable outcome. Future studies should incorporate standardized multidimensional and temporal long-term outcome measures to strengthen the evidence-base for acute and subacute decision-making. HIGHLIGHTS: 1. Expectation of long-term outcome is an important factor in treatment decision-making for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). 2. Favourable outcome and full recovery after sTBI are possible, but mortality and unfavourable outcome rates are high. 3. sTBI survivors are likely to suffer from a wide range of long-term consequences, underscoring the need for long-term and multi-modality outcome assessment in future studies. 4. The quality of the scientific literature on long-term outcome after sTBI can and should be improved to advance treatment decision-making.

Early versus delayed cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: a multicenter observational study within CENTER-TBI and Net-QuRe.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of early (≤ 90 days) and delayed (> 90 days) cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy (DC) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: The authors analyzed participants enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) and the Neurotraumatology Quality Registry (Net-QuRe) studies who were diagnosed with TBI and underwent DC and subsequent cranioplasty. These prospective, multicenter, observational cohort studies included 5091 patients enrolled from 2014 to 2020. The effect of cranioplasty timing on functional outcome was evaluated with multivariable ordinal regression and with propensity score matching (PSM) in a sensitivity analysis of functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended [GOSE] score) and quality of life (Quality of Life After Brain Injury [QOLIBRI] instrument) at 12 months following DC. RESULTS: Among 173 eligible patients, 73 (42%) underwent early cranioplasty and 100 (58%) underwent delayed cranioplasty. In the ordinal logistic regression and PSM, similar 12-month GOSE scores were found between the two groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.21 and 0.88, 95% CI 0.48-1.65, respectively). In the ordinal logistic regression, early cranioplasty was associated with a higher risk for hydrocephalus than that with delayed cranioplasty (aOR 4.0, 95% CI 1.2-16). Postdischarge seizure rates (early cranioplasty: aOR 1.73, 95% CI 0.7-4.7) and QOLIBRI scores (ß -1.9, 95% CI -9.1 to 9.6) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcome and quality of life were similar between early and delayed cranioplasty in patients who had undergone DC for TBI. Neurosurgeons may consider performing cranioplasty during the index admission (early) to simplify the patient's chain of care and prevent readmission for cranioplasty but should be vigilant for an increased possibility of hydrocephalus. Clinical trial registration nos.: CENTER-TBI, NCT02210221 (clinicaltrials.gov); Net-QuRe, NTR6003 (trialsearch.who.int) and NL5761 (onderzoekmetmensen.nl).

Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study.

Background: Limited evidence existed on the comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) versus craniotomy for evacuation of traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) until the recently published randomised clinical trial RESCUE-ASDH. In this study, that ran concurrently, we aimed to determine current practice patterns and compare outcomes of primary DC versus craniotomy. Methods: We conducted an analysis of centre treatment preference within the prospective, multicentre, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (known as CENTER-TBI) and NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry (known as Net-QuRe) studies, which enrolled patients throughout Europe and Israel (2014-2020). We included patients with an ASDH who underwent acute neurosurgical evacuation. Patients with severe pre-existing neurological disorders were excluded. In an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference, measured by the case-mix adjusted proportion DC per centre. The primary outcome was functional outcome rated by the 6-months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR), adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median odds ratio (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582). Findings: Between December 19, 2014 and December 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI of whom 336 (7%) underwent acute surgery for ASDH evacuation; 91 (27%) underwent DC and 245 (63%) craniotomy. The proportion primary DC within total acute surgery cases ranged from 6 to 67% with an interquartile range (IQR) of 12-26% among 46 centres; the odds of receiving a DC for prognostically similar patients in one centre versus another randomly selected centre were trebled (adjusted median odds ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001). Higher centre preference for DC over craniotomy was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio (OR) per 14% [IQR increase] more DC in a centre = 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1], n = 200). Primary DC was associated with more follow-on surgeries and complications [secondary cranial surgery 27% vs. 18%; shunts 11 vs. 5%]; and similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 14% IQR more primary DC 1.3 [95% CI (1.0-3.4), n = 200]). Interpretation: We found substantial practice variation in the employment of DC over craniotomy for ASDH. This variation in treatment strategy did not result in different functional outcome. These findings suggest that primary DC should be restricted to salvageable patients in whom immediate replacement of the bone flap is not possible due to intraoperative brain swelling. Funding: Hersenstichting Nederland for the Dutch NeuroTraumatology Quality Registry and the European Union Seventh Framework Program.

Challenges Encountered in Surgical Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Need for Methodological Improvement of Future Studies.

BACKGROUND: Investigating neurosurgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (TBI) involves complex methodological and practical challenges. In the present report, we have provided an overview of the current state of neurosurgical TBI research and discussed the key challenges and possible solutions. METHODS: The content of our report was based on an extensive literature review and personal knowledge and expert opinions of senior neurosurgeon researchers and epidemiologists. RESULTS: Current best practice research strategies include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative effectiveness research. The performance of RCTs has been complicated by the heterogeneity of TBI patient populations with the associated sample size requirements, the traditional eminence-based neurosurgical culture, inadequate research budgets, and the often acutely life-threatening setting of severe TBI. Statistical corrections can mitigate the effects of heterogeneity, and increasing awareness of clinical equipoise and informed consent alternatives can improve trial efficiency. The substantial confounding by indication, which limits the interpretability of observational research, can be circumvented by using an instrumental variable analysis. Traditional TBI outcome measures remain relevant but do not adequately capture the subtleties of well-being, suggesting a need for multidimensional approaches to outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: In settings in which traditional RCTs are difficult to conduct and substantial confounding by indication can be present, observational studies using an instrumental variable analysis and "pragmatic" RCTs are promising alternatives. Embedding TBI research into standard clinical practice should be more frequently considered but will require fundamental modifications to the current health care system. Finally, multimodality outcome assessment will be key to improving future surgical and nonsurgical TBI research.

Randomized Evaluation of Surgery in Elderly with Traumatic Acute SubDural Hematoma (RESET-ASDH trial): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with multicenter parallel group design.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly increasing number of elderly (≥ 65 years old) with TBI is accompanied by substantial medical and economic consequences. An ASDH is the most common injury in elderly with TBI and the surgical versus conservative treatment of this patient group remains an important clinical dilemma. Current BTF guidelines are not based on high-quality evidence and compliance is low, allowing for large international treatment variation. The RESET-ASDH trial is an international multicenter RCT on the (cost-)effectiveness of early neurosurgical hematoma evacuation versus initial conservative treatment in elderly with a t-ASDH METHODS: In total, 300 patients will be recruited from 17 Belgian and Dutch trauma centers. Patients ≥ 65 years with at first presentation a GCS ≥ 9 and a t-ASDH > 10 mm or a t-ASDH < 10 mm and a midline shift > 5 mm, or a GCS < 9 with a traumatic ASDH < 10 mm and a midline shift < 5 mm without extracranial explanation for the comatose state, for whom clinical equipoise exists will be randomized to early surgical hematoma evacuation or initial conservative management with the possibility of delayed secondary surgery. When possible, patients or their legal representatives will be asked for consent before inclusion. When obtaining patient or proxy consent is impossible within the therapeutic time window, patients are enrolled using the deferred consent procedure. Medical-ethical approval was obtained in the Netherlands and Belgium. The choice of neurosurgical techniques will be left to the discretion of the neurosurgeon. Patients will be analyzed according to an intention-to-treat design. The primary endpoint will be functional outcome on the GOS-E after 1 year. Patient recruitment starts in 2022 with the exact timing depending on the current COVID-19 crisis and is expected to end in 2024. DISCUSSION: The study results will be implemented after publication and presented on international conferences. Depending on the trial results, the current Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines will either be substantiated by high-quality evidence or will have to be altered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL9012 . CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Trial NCT04648436 .

Surgery versus conservative treatment for traumatic acute subdural haematoma: a prospective, multicentre, observational, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Despite being well established, acute surgery in traumatic acute subdural haematoma is based on low-grade evidence. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a strategy preferring acute surgical evacuation with one preferring initial conservative treatment in acute subdural haematoma. METHODS: We did a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study using data from participants enrolled in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) cohort. We included patients with no pre-existing severe neurological disorders who presented with acute subdural haematoma within 24 h of traumatic brain injury. Using an instrumental variable analysis, we compared outcomes between centres according to treatment preference for acute subdural haematoma (acute surgical evacuation or initial conservative treatment), measured by the case-mix-adjusted percentage of acute surgery per centre. The primary endpoint was functional outcome at 6 months as rated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, which was estimated with ordinal regression as a common odds ratio (OR) and adjusted for prespecified confounders. Variation in centre preference was quantified with the median OR (MOR). CENTER-TBI is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and the Resource Identification Portal (Research Resource Identifier SCR_015582). FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2014 and Dec 17, 2017, 4559 patients with traumatic brain injury were enrolled in CENTER-TBI, of whom 1407 (31%) presented with acute subdural haematoma and were included in our study. Acute surgical evacuation was done in 336 (24%) patients, by craniotomy in 245 (73%) of those patients and by decompressive craniectomy in 91 (27%). Delayed decompressive craniectomy or craniotomy after initial conservative treatment (n=982) occurred in 107 (11%) patients. The percentage of patients who underwent acute surgery ranged from 5·6% to 51·5% (IQR 12·3-35·9) between centres, with a two-times higher probability of receiving acute surgery for an identical patient in one centre versus another centre at random (adjusted MOR for acute surgery 1·8; p<0·0001]). Centre preference for acute surgery over initial conservative treatment was not associated with improvements in functional outcome (common OR per 23·6% [IQR increase] more acute surgery in a centre 0·92, 95% CI 0·77-1·09). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that treatment for patients with acute subdural haematoma with similar characteristics differed depending on the treating centre, because of variation in the preferred approach. A treatment strategy preferring an aggressive approach of acute surgical evacuation over initial conservative treatment was not associated with better functional outcome. Therefore, in a patient with acute subdural haematoma for whom a neurosurgeon sees no clear superiority for acute surgery over conservative treatment, initial conservative treatment might be considered. FUNDING: The Hersenstichting Nederland (also known as the Dutch Brain Foundation), the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme, the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), OneMind (USA), Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA), and NeuroTrauma Sciences (USA).

Delayed-onset white cord syndrome after anterior and posterior cervical decompression surgery for symptomatic ossification of spinal ligaments: illustrative cases.

BACKGROUND: White cord syndrome is an extremely rare complication of cervical decompressive surgery, characterized by serious postoperative neurological deficits in the absence of apparent surgical complications. It is named after the characteristic ischemic-edematous intramedullary T2-hyperintense signal on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging and is believed to be caused by ischemic-reperfusion injury. Neurological deficits typically manifest immediately after surgery, and delayed occurrence has been reported only once. OBSERVATIONS: The authors presented two cases of delayed white cord syndrome after anterior and posterior cervical decompression surgery for symptomatic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and ligamentum flavum, respectively. Neurological deficits manifested on postoperative day 2 (case 1) and day 8 (case 2). The patients' conditions were managed with high-dose corticosteroids, mean arterial pressure augmentation, and early physical therapy, after which they showed partial neurological recovery at discharge, which improved further by the 3-month follow-up visit. LESSONS: The authors' aim was to raise awareness among spine surgeons about this rare but severe complication of cervical decompressive surgery and to emphasize the mainstays of treatment based on current best evidence: high-dose corticosteroids, mean arterial pressure augmentation, and early physical therapy.