Early detection of nonneurologic organ failure in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: Multiple organ dysfunction score or sequential organ failure assessment?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the discriminant function of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) components in predicting the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality and neurologic outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive-analytic study was conducted at a level I trauma center. Data were collected from patients with severe traumatic brain injury admitted to the neurosurgical ICU. Basic demographic data, SOFA and MOD scores were recorded daily for all patients. Odd's ratios (ORs) were calculated to determine the relationship of each component score to mortality, and area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to compare the discriminative ability of two tools with respect to ICU mortality. RESULTS: The most common organ failure observed was respiratory detected by SOFA of 26% and MODS of 13%, and the second common was cardiovascular detected by SOFA of 18% and MODS of 13%. No hepatic or renal failure occurred, and coagulation failure reported as 2.5% by SOFA and MODS. Cardiovascular failure defined by both tools had a correlation to ICU mortality and it was more significant for SOFA (OR = 6.9, CI = 3.6-13.3, P < 0.05 for SOFA; OR = 5, CI = 3-8.3, P < 0.05 for MODS; AUROC = 0.82 for SOFA; AUROC = 0.73 for MODS). The relationship of cardiovascular failure to dichotomized neurologic outcome was not significant statistically. ICU mortality was not associated with respiratory or coagulation failure. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular failure defined by either tool significantly related to ICU mortality. Compared to MODS, SOFA-defined cardiovascular failure was a stronger predictor of death. ICU mortality was not affected by respiratory or coagulation failures.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion: Analogous procedures in decreasing the index of disability in patients with spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the disability in patients with spondylolisthesis who assigned either to posterolateral fusion (PLF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and to compare it between two groups. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, 102 surgical candidates with low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis enrolled from 2012 to 2014, and randomly assigned into two groups: PLF and PLIF. Evaluation of disability has been done by a questionnaire using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The questionnaire was completed by all patients before the surgery, the day after surgery, after 6 months and after 1-year. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in terms of age and sex distribution and pre-operation ODI between groups (P > 0.05). Comparison of the mean ODI scores of two groups over the whole study period showed no significant statistical difference (P = 0.074). ODIs also showed no significant differences between two groups the day after surgery, 6(th) months and 1-year after surgery (P = 0.385, P = 0.093, P = 0.122 and P = 433) respectively. Analyzing the course of ODI over the study period, showed a significant descending pattern for either of groups (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both surgical fusion techniques (PLF and PLIF) were efficient to lessen the disability of patients with spondylolisthesis, and none of the fusion techniques were related to a better outcome in terms of disability.