Decompressive Craniectomy versus Craniotomy for Acute Subdural Hematoma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic acute subdural hematomas frequently warrant surgical evacuation by means of a craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or decompressive craniectomy (bone flap not replaced). Craniectomy may prevent intracranial hypertension, but whether it is associated with better outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a trial in which patients undergoing surgery for traumatic acute subdural hematoma were randomly assigned to undergo craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy. An inclusion criterion was a bone flap with an anteroposterior diameter of 11 cm or more. The primary outcome was the rating on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (an 8-point scale, ranging from death to "upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the GOSE rating at 6 months and quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were assigned to the craniotomy group and 222 to the decompressive craniectomy group. The median diameter of the bone flap was 13 cm (interquartile range, 12 to 14) in both groups. The common odds ratio for the differences across GOSE ratings at 12 months was 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.18; P = 0.32). Results were similar at 6 months. At 12 months, death had occurred in 30.2% of the patients in the craniotomy group and in 32.2% of those in the craniectomy group; a vegetative state occurred in 2.3% and 2.8%, respectively, and a lower or upper good recovery occurred in 25.6% and 19.9%. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar in the two groups at 12 months. Additional cranial surgery within 2 weeks after randomization was performed in 14.6% of the craniotomy group and in 6.9% of the craniectomy group. Wound complications occurred in 3.9% of the craniotomy group and in 12.2% of the craniectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with traumatic acute subdural hematoma who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy, disability and quality-of-life outcomes were similar with the two approaches. Additional surgery was performed in a higher proportion of the craniotomy group, but more wound complications occurred in the craniectomy group. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; RESCUE-ASDH ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN87370545.).

Trial of Dexamethasone for Chronic Subdural Hematoma.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural hematoma is a common neurologic disorder that is especially prevalent among older people. The effect of dexamethasone on outcomes in patients with chronic subdural hematoma has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in the United Kingdom that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic chronic subdural hematoma. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 2-week tapering course of oral dexamethasone, starting at 8 mg twice daily, or placebo. The decision to surgically evacuate the hematoma was made by the treating clinician. The primary outcome was a score of 0 to 3, representing a favorable outcome, on the modified Rankin scale at 6 months after randomization; scores range from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). RESULTS: From August 2015 through November 2019, a total of 748 patients were included in the trial after randomization - 375 were assigned to the dexamethasone group and 373 to the placebo group. The mean age of the patients was 74 years, and 94% underwent surgery to evacuate their hematomas during the index admission; 60% in both groups had a score of 1 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale at admission. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded the patients who withdrew consent for participation in the trial or who were lost to follow-up, leaving a total of 680 patients, a favorable outcome was reported in 286 of 341 patients (83.9%) in the dexamethasone group and in 306 of 339 patients (90.3%) in the placebo group (difference, -6.4 percentage points [95% confidence interval, -11.4 to -1.4] in favor of the placebo group; P = 0.01). Among the patients with available data, repeat surgery for recurrence of the hematoma was performed in 6 of 349 patients (1.7%) in the dexamethasone group and in 25 of 350 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group. More adverse events occurred in the dexamethasone group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with symptomatic chronic subdural hematoma, most of whom had undergone surgery to remove their hematomas during the index admission, treatment with dexamethasone resulted in fewer favorable outcomes and more adverse events than placebo at 6 months, but fewer repeat operations were performed in the dexamethasone group. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; Dex-CSDH ISRCTN number, ISRCTN80782810.).

Current landscape of academic neurosurgical training in the United Kingdom: analysis by the Society of British Neurological Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the impact of academic training on Neurosurgery in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim was to understand the early career clinical and research training journeys of potential future clinical academics, with a view to informing future policy and strategy to improve career development for academic neurosurgical trainees and consultants in the UK. METHODS: An online survey from the Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS) academic committee was distributed to both the SBNS and British Neurosurgical Trainee Association (BNTA) mailing lists in early 2022. Neurosurgical trainees for any period between 2007 and 2022 or who had done any dedicated academic or clinical academic placement were encouraged to complete the survey. RESULTS: Sixty responses were received. Six (10%) were females and fifty-four (90%) were males. At the time of response, nine (15.0%) were clinical trainees, four (6.7%) were Academic Clinical Fellows (ACF), six (10.0%) were Academic Clinical Lecturers (ACL), four (6.7%) were post-CCT fellows, eight (13.3%) were NHS consultants, eight (13.3%) were academic consultants, eighteen (30.0%) were out of the programme (OOP) pursuing a PhD potentially returning to training, whilst three (5.0%) had left neurosurgery training entirely and no longer performing clinical neurosurgery. The mentorship was sought in most programmes, which tended to be informal. Self-reported success on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the most successful, was greatest in the MD and the "Other research degree/fellowship group" which does not include a PhD. There was a significant positive association between completing a PhD and having an academic consultant appointment (Pearson Chi-Square = 5.33, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a snapshot to better understand the opinions of academic training in neurosurgery within the UK. Establishing clear, modifiable, and achievable goals, as well as providing tools for research success, may contribute to the success of this nationwide academic training.

Comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid haemorrhage and cervical spine disease.

PURPOSE: The degree of disability that is acceptable to patients following traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to be debated. While the dichotomization of outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOSE) into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' continues to guide clinical decisions, this may not reflect an individual's subjective experience. The aim of this study is to assess how patients' self-reported quality of life (QoL) relates to objective outcome assessments and how it compares to other debilitating neurosurgical pathologies, including subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) and cervical myelopathy. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of over 1300 patients seen in Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK with TBI, SAH and patients pre- and post- cervical surgery was performed. QoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyse the difference in SF-36 domain scores between the four unpaired patient groups. To determine how the point of dichotomization of GOSE into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' outcome affected QOL, SF-36 scores were compared between GOSE and mRS. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the median Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of SF-36 between the three neurosurgical pathologies. Patients with TBI and SAH scored higher on most SF-36 domains when compared with cervical myelopathy patients in the severe category. While patients with Upper Severe Disability on GOSE showed significantly higher PC and MC scores compared to GOSE 3, there was a significant degree of variability in individual responses across the groups. CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients following TBI and SAH have better self-reported QOL than cervical spine patients and patients' subjective perception and expectations following injury do not always correspond to objective disability. These results can guide discussion of treatment and outcomes with patients and families.

CRP (C-Reactive Protein) in Outcome Prediction After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and the Role of Machine Learning.

Background and Purpose: Outcome prediction after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is challenging. CRP (C-reactive protein) has been reported to be associated with outcome, but it is unclear if this is independent of other predictors and applies to aSAH of all grades. Therefore, the role of CRP in aSAH outcome prediction models is unknown. The purpose of this study is to assess if CRP is an independent predictor of outcome after aSAH, develop new prognostic models incorporating CRP, and test whether these can be improved by application of machine learning. Methods: This was an individual patient-level analysis of data from patients within 72 hours of aSAH from 2 prior studies. A panel of statistical learning methods including logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machines were used to assess the relationship between CRP and modified Rankin Scale. Models were compared with the full Subarachnoid Hemmorhage International Trialists' (SAHIT) prediction tool of outcome after aSAH and internally validated using cross-validation. Results: One thousand and seventeen patients were included for analysis. CRP on the first day after ictus was an independent predictor of outcome. The full SAHIT model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.831. Addition of CRP to the predictors of the full SAHIT model improved model performance (AUC, 0.846, P=0.01). This improvement was not enhanced when learning was performed using a random forest (AUC, 0.807), but was with a support vector machine (AUC of 0.960, P <0.001). Conclusions: CRP is an independent predictor of outcome after aSAH. Its inclusion in prognostic models improves performance, although the magnitude of improvement is probably insufficient to be relevant clinically on an individual patient level, and of more relevance in research. Greater improvements in model performance are seen with support vector machines but these models have the highest classification error rate on internal validation and require external validation and calibration.

Academic neurosurgery in the UK: present and future directions.

Academic neurosurgery encompasses basic science and clinical research efforts to better understand and treat diseases of relevance to neurosurgical practice, with the overall aim of improving treatment and outcome for patients. In this article, we provide an overview of the current and future directions of British academic neurosurgery. Training pathways are considered together with personal accounts of experiences of structured integrated clinical academic training and unstructured academic training. Life as an academic consultant is also described. Funding is explored, for the specialty as a whole and at the individual level. UK academic neurosurgical organisations are highlighted. Finally, the UK's international standing is considered.

Pharmacological management of post-traumatic seizures in adults: current practice patterns in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question. CONCLUSION: The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions.

Decompressive craniectomy following traumatic brain injury: developing the evidence base.

In the context of traumatic brain injury (TBI), decompressive craniectomy (DC) is used as part of tiered therapeutic protocols for patients with intracranial hypertension (secondary or protocol-driven DC). In addition, the bone flap can be left out when evacuating a mass lesion, usually an acute subdural haematoma (ASDH), in the acute phase (primary DC). Even though, the principle of "opening the skull" in order to control brain oedema and raised intracranial pressure has been practised since the beginning of the 20th century, the last 20 years have been marked by efforts to develop the evidence base with the conduct of randomised trials. This article discusses the merits and challenges of this approach and provides an overview of randomised trials of DC following TBI. An update on the RESCUEicp study, a randomised trial of DC versus advanced medical management (including barbiturates) for severe and refractory post-traumatic intracranial hypertension is provided. In addition, the rationale for the RESCUE-ASDH study, the first randomised trial of primary DC versus craniotomy for adult head-injured patients with an ASDH, is presented.

Cost-effectiveness of craniotomy versus decompressive craniectomy for UK patients with traumatic acute subdural haematoma.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy, compared with decompressive craniectomy (DC) in UK patients undergoing evacuation of acute subdural haematoma (ASDH). DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken using health resource use and outcome data from the 12-month multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Patients Undergoing Evacuation-ASDH trial. SETTING: UK secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: 248 UK patients undergoing surgery for traumatic ASDH were randomised to craniotomy (N=126) or DC (N=122). INTERVENTIONS: Surgical evacuation via craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or DC (bone flap left out with a view to replace later: cranioplasty surgery). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In the base-case analysis, costs were estimated from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were assessed via the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (cost-utility analysis) and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (cost-effectiveness analysis). Multiple imputation and regression analyses were conducted to estimate the mean incremental cost and effect of craniotomy compared with DC. The most cost-effective option was selected, irrespective of the level of statistical significance as is argued by economists. RESULTS: In the cost-utility analysis, the mean incremental cost of craniotomy compared with DC was estimated to be -£5520 (95% CI -£18 060 to £7020) with a mean QALY gain of 0.093 (95% CI 0.029 to 0.156). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean incremental cost was estimated to be -£4536 (95% CI -£17 374 to £8301) with an OR of 1.682 (95% CI 0.995 to 2.842) for a favourable outcome on the GOSE. CONCLUSIONS: In a UK population with traumatic ASDH, craniotomy was estimated to be cost-effective compared with DC: craniotomy was estimated to have a lower mean cost, higher mean QALY gain and higher probability of a more favourable outcome on the GOSE (though not all estimated differences between the two approaches were statistically significant). ETHICS: Ethical approval for the trial was obtained from the North West-Haydock Research Ethics Committee in the UK on 17 July 2014 (14/NW/1076). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87370545.

Consensus-Based Development of a Global Registry for Traumatic Brain Injury: Establishment, Protocol, and Implementation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Global disparity exists in the demographics, pathology, management, and outcomes of surgically treated traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the factors underlying these differences, including intervention effectiveness, remain unclear. Establishing a more accurate global picture of the burden of TBI represents a challenging task requiring systematic and ongoing data collection of patients with TBI across all management modalities. The objective of this study was to establish a global registry that would enable local service benchmarking against a global standard, identification of unmet need in TBI management, and its evidence-based prioritization in policymaking. METHODS: The registry was developed in an iterative consensus-based manner by a panel of neurotrauma professionals. Proposed registry objectives, structure, and data points were established in 2 international multidisciplinary neurotrauma meetings, after which a survey consisting of the same data points was circulated within the global neurotrauma community. The survey results were disseminated in a final meeting to reach a consensus on the most pertinent registry variables. RESULTS: A total of 156 professionals from 53 countries, including both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, responded to the survey. The final consensus-based registry includes patients with TBI who required neurosurgical admission, a neurosurgical procedure, or a critical care admission. The data set comprised clinically pertinent information on demographics, injury characteristics, imaging, treatments, and short-term outcomes. Based on the consensus, the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry was established. CONCLUSION: The GEO-TBI registry will enable high-quality data collection, clinical auditing, and research activity, and it is supported by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and the National Institute of Health Research Global Health Program. The GEO-TBI registry ( https://geotbi.org ) is now open for participant site recruitment. Any center involved in TBI management is welcome to join the collaboration to access the registry.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of a two-week course of dexamethasone for adult patients with a symptomatic Chronic Subdural Haematoma (Dex-CSDH trial).

Background: Chronic subdural haematoma is a collection of 'old blood' and its breakdown products in the subdural space and predominantly affects older people. Surgical evacuation remains the mainstay in the management of symptomatic cases. Objective: The Dex-CSDH (DEXamethasone in Chronic SubDural Haematoma) randomised trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone in patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. Design: This was a parallel, superiority, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Assigned treatment was administered in a double-blind fashion. Outcome assessors were also blinded to treatment allocation. Setting: Neurosurgical units in the UK. Participants: Eligible participants included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to a neurosurgical unit with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma confirmed on cranial imaging. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 allocation to a 2-week tapering course of dexamethasone or placebo alongside standard care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months dichotomised to a favourable (score of 0-3) or an unfavourable (score of 4-6) outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Modified Rankin Scale score at discharge and 3 months; number of chronic subdural haematoma-related surgical interventions undertaken during the index and subsequent admissions; Barthel Index and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level utility index score reported at discharge, 3 months and 6 months; Glasgow Coma Scale score reported at discharge and 6 months; mortality at 30 days and 6 months; length of stay; discharge destination; and adverse events. An economic evaluation was also undertaken, during which the net monetary benefit was estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: A total of 748 patients were included after randomisation: 375 were assigned to dexamethasone and 373 were assigned to placebo. The mean age of the patients was 74 years and 94% underwent evacuation of their chronic subdural haematoma during the trial period. A total of 680 patients (91%) had 6-month primary outcome data available for analysis: 339 in the placebo arm and 341 in the dexamethasone arm. On a modified intention-to-treat analysis of the full study population, there was an absolute reduction in the proportion of favourable outcomes of 6.4% (95% confidence interval 11.4% to 1.4%; p = 0.01) in the dexamethasone arm compared with the control arm at 6 months. At 3 months, the between-group difference was also in favour of placebo (-8.2%, 95% confidence interval -13.3% to -3.1%). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 out of 375 (16.0%) in the dexamethasone arm and 24 out of 373 (6.4%) in the placebo arm. The net monetary benefit of dexamethasone compared with placebo was estimated to be -£97.19. Conclusions: This trial reports a higher rate of unfavourable outcomes at 6 months, and a higher rate of serious adverse events, in the dexamethasone arm than in the placebo arm. Dexamethasone was also not estimated to be cost-effective. Therefore, dexamethasone cannot be recommended for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma in this population group. Future work and limitations: A total of 94% of individuals underwent surgery, meaning that this trial does not fully define the role of dexamethasone in conservatively managed haematomas, which is a potential area for future study. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN80782810. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/15/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Chronic subdural haematoma is one of the most common conditions managed in adult neurosurgery and mainly affects older people. It is an 'old' collection of blood and blood breakdown products found on the surface of the brain. Surgery to drain the liquid collection is effective, with most patients improving. Given that inflammation is involved in the disease process, a commonly used steroid, dexamethasone, has been used alongside surgery or instead of surgery since the 1970s. However, there is no consensus or high-quality studies confirming the effectiveness of dexamethasone for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of adding dexamethasone to the normal treatment for patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. The benefit of adding dexamethasone was measured using a disability score called the Modified Rankin Scale, which can be divided into favourable and unfavourable outcomes. This was assessed at 6 months after entry into the study. In total, 748 adults with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma treated in neurosurgical units in the UK participated. Each participant had an equal chance of receiving either dexamethasone or a placebo because they were assigned randomly. Neither the patients nor the investigators knew who received dexamethasone and who received placebo. Most patients in both groups had an operation to drain the haematoma and experienced significant functional improvement at 6 months compared with their initial admission to hospital. However, patients who received dexamethasone had a lower chance than patients who received placebo of favourable recovery at 6 months. Specifically, 84% of patients who received dexamethasone had recovered well at 6 months, compared with 90% of patients who received placebo. There were more complications in the group that received dexamethasone. This trial demonstrates that adding dexamethasone to standard treatment reduced the chance of a favourable outcome compared with standard treatment alone. Therefore, this study does not support the use of dexamethasone in treating patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma.

Standardizing Cranioplasty Outcomes Following Stroke or Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are important and necessary as they help standardize reporting in research studies. Cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke is becoming increasingly common, leading to an ever-growing clinical and research interest, especially regarding the optimal material, cost-effectiveness, and timing of cranioplasty concerning neurological recovery and complications. Consequently, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes from such diverse studies has led to limited meta-analysis ability and an ongoing risk of outcome reporting bias. This study aims to define a standardized COS for reporting in all future TBI and stroke cranioplasty studies. OBJECTIVE: This study has four aims: (1) undertake a systematic review to collate the most current outcome measures used within the cranioplasty literature; (2) undertake a qualitative study to understand better the views of clinicians, patients' relatives, and allied health professionals regarding clinical outcomes following cranioplasty; (3) undertake a Delphi survey as part of the process of gaining consensus for the COS; and (4) finalize consensus through a consensus meeting resulting in the COS. METHODS: An international steering committee has been formed to guide the development of the COS. In addition, recommendations from other clinical initiatives such as COMET (Core Outcomes and Effectiveness Trials) and OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) have been adhered to. Phase 1 is data collection through a systematic review and qualitative study. Phase 2 is the COS development through a Delphi survey and consensus meetings with consensus definitions decided and agreed upon before the Delphi survey begins to avoid bias. RESULTS: Phase 1 started at the end of 2019, following ethical approval in December 2019, and the project completion date is planned for the end of 2022 or beginning of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study should result in a consensus on a COS for cranioplasty, following TBI or stroke, to help standardize outcome reporting for future studies, which can be applied to future research and clinical services, help align future studies, build an increased understanding of cranioplasty and its impact on a patient's function and recovery, and help standardize the evidence base. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37442.

An international, prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury epidemiology study protocol: GEO-TBI: Incidence.

Background: The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unclear - it is estimated to affect 27-69 million individuals yearly with the bulk of the TBI burden in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Research has highlighted significant between-hospital variability in TBI outcomes following emergency surgery, but the overall incidence and epidemiology of TBI remains unclear. To address this need, we established the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry, enabling recording of all TBI cases requiring admission irrespective of surgical treatment. Objective: The GEO-TBI: Incidence study aims to describe TBI epidemiology and outcomes according to development indices, and to highlight best practices to facilitate further comparative research. Design: Multi-centre, international, registry-based, prospective cohort study. Subjects: Any unit managing TBI and participating in the GEO-TBI registry will be eligible to join the study. Each unit will select a 90-day study period. All TBI patients meeting the registry inclusion criteria (neurosurgical/ICU admission or neurosurgical operation) during the selected study period will be included in the GEO-TBI: Incidence. Methods: All units will form a study team, that will gain local approval, identify eligible patients and input data. Data will be collected via the secure registry platform and validated after collection. Identifiers may be collected if required for local utility in accordance with the GEO-TBI protocol. Data: Data related to initial presentation, interventions and short-term outcomes will be collected in line with the GEO-TBI core dataset, developed following consensus from an iterative survey and feedback process. Patient demographics, injury details, timing and nature of interventions and post-injury care will be collected alongside associated complications. The primary outcome measures for the study will be the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and 14-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures will be mortality and extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) at the most recent follow-up timepoint.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant global health problem, which affects 27­69 million people every year. After-effects of TBI commonly affect the injured individuals for years. Most patients who sustain a TBI are from developing countries. Research has shown that there are differences in patients' recovery after TBI between countries and hospitals. The causes of these differences are unclear and tackling them could improve TBI treatment worldwide. To address this need, we have recently established the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes Following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry. The international collaborative registry aims to collect data related to the causes, treatments and outcomes related to TBI patients. This data will hopefully enable future research to elucidate the causes of the recovery differences between hospitals, which could lead to improved patient outcomes. The GEO-TBI: Incidence study collects data from all TBI patients that are admitted to participating hospitals or undergo a neurosurgical operation due to TBI during a 90-day period. This study looks at the patient's recovery at discharge using the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS), and at the 2-week mortality. In addition, the study also evaluates recovery at the most recent follow-up timepoint. We hope that this information will enhance our understanding on the causes, treatments, and commonness of TBI. The study results will also help local hospitals compare their treatment results to an international standard.

Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: The top research priority for cavernoma, identified by a James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnership was 'Does treatment (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) or no treatment improve outcome for people diagnosed with a cavernoma?' This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility of answering this question in a main phase RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a pilot phase, parallel group, pragmatic RCT involving approximately 60 children or adults with mental capacity, resident in the UK or Ireland, with an unresected symptomatic brain cavernoma. Participants will be randomised by web-based randomisation 1:1 to treatment with medical management and with surgery (neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone, stratified by prerandomisation preference for type of surgery. In addition to 13 feasibility outcomes, the primary clinical outcome is symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or new persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit measured at 6 monthly intervals. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) evaluates screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment discussions, and interviews with recruiters and patients/parents/carers to identify and address barriers to participation. A Patient Advisory Group has codesigned the study and will oversee its progress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0046). We will submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals, describing the findings of the QRI and the Cavernomas: A Randomised Evaluation (CARE) pilot trial. We will present at national specialty meetings. We will disseminate a plain English summary of the findings of the CARE pilot trial to participants and public audiences with input from, and acknowledgement of, the Patient Advisory Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41647111.

Delivering Large-Scale Neurosurgical Studies in the UK: The Impact of Trainees.

The UK neurosurgical community has a track record of delivering high-quality, practice-changing clinical research studies, facilitated by a robust clinical research infrastructure and close collaborations between neurosurgical centers. More recently, these large-scale studies have been conceived, developed, and delivered by neurosurgical trainees, working under the umbrella of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC). In this paper, we outline the current landscape of large-scale neurosurgical studies in the UK, focusing on the role of trainees in facilitating this research. Importantly, we focus on our experience of trainee-led studies, including the development of the network, current challenges, and future directions. We believe that a similar model can be applied in different settings and countries, which will drive up the quality of neurosurgical research, ultimately benefiting future neurosurgical patients.

Development of 'Core Outcome Sets' for Meningioma in Clinical Studies (The COSMIC Project): protocol for two systematic literature reviews, eDelphi surveys and online consensus meetings.

INTRODUCTION: Meningioma is the most common primary intracranial tumour in adults. The majority are non-malignant, but a proportion behave more aggressively. Incidental/minimally symptomatic meningioma are often managed by serial imaging. Symptomatic meningioma, those that threaten neurovascular structures, or demonstrate radiological growth, are usually resected as first-line management strategy. For patients in poor clinical condition, or with inoperable, residual or recurrent disease, radiotherapy is often used as primary or adjuvant treatment. Effective pharmacotherapy treatments do not currently exist. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical studies. Two 'Core Outcome Sets' (COS) will be developed: (COSMIC: Intervention) for use in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and (COSMIC: Observation) for use in clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two systematic literature reviews and trial registry searches will identify outcomes measured and reported in published and ongoing (1) meningioma clinical effectiveness trials, and (2) clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. Outcomes include those that are clinician reported, patient reported, caregiver reported and based on objective tests (eg, neurocognitive tests), as well as measures of progression and survival. Outcomes will be deduplicated and categorised to generate two long lists. The two long lists will be prioritised through two, two-round, international, modified eDelphi surveys including patients with meningioma, healthcare professionals, researchers and those in caring/supporting roles. The two final COS will be ratified through two 1-day online consensus meetings, with representation from all stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional review board (University of Liverpool) approval was obtained for the conduct of this study. Participant eConsent will be obtained prior to participation in the eDelphi surveys and consensus meetings. The two systematic literature reviews and two final COS will be published and freely available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: COMET study ID 1508.