Clinical and Imaging Characteristics, Care Pathways, and Outcomes of Traumatic Epidural Hematomas: A Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Guideline recommendations for surgical management of traumatic epidural hematomas (EDHs) do not directly address EDHs that co-occur with other intracranial hematomas; the relative rates of isolated vs nonisolated EDHs and guideline adherence are unknown. We describe characteristics of a contemporary cohort of patients with EDHs and identify factors influencing acute surgery. METHODS: This research was conducted within the longitudinal, observational Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury cohort study which prospectively enrolled patients with traumatic brain injury from 65 hospitals in 18 European countries from 2014 to 2017. All patients with EDH on the first scan were included. We describe clinical, imaging, management, and outcome characteristics and assess associations between site and baseline characteristics and acute EDH surgery, using regression modeling. RESULTS: In 461 patients with EDH, median age was 41 years (IQR 24-56), 76% were male, and median EDH volume was 5 cm3 (IQR 2-20). Concomitant acute subdural hematomas (ASDHs) and/or intraparenchymal hemorrhages were present in 328/461 patients (71%). Acute surgery was performed in 99/461 patients (21%), including 70/86 with EDH volume ≥30 cm3 (81%). Larger EDH volumes (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 [95% CI 1.14-1.24] per cm3 below 30 cm3), smaller ASDH volumes (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.88-0.97] per cm3), and midline shift (OR 6.63 [95% CI 1.99-22.15]) were associated with acute surgery; between-site variation was observed (median OR 2.08 [95% CI 1.01-3.48]). Six-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended scores ≥5 occurred in 289/389 patients (74%); 41/389 (11%) died. CONCLUSION: Isolated EDHs are relatively infrequent, and two-thirds of patients harbor concomitant ASDHs and/or intraparenchymal hemorrhages. EDHs ≥30 cm3 are generally evacuated early, adhering to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. For heterogeneous intracranial pathology, surgical decision-making is related to clinical status and overall lesion burden. Further research should examine the optimal surgical management of EDH with concomitant lesions in traumatic brain injury, to inform updated guidelines.

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).

Update of the CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for patients with minor head injury based on a multicenter consecutive case series.

OBJECTIVE: To update the existing CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for detection of (intra)cranial findings in adult patients following minor head injury (MHI). METHODS: The study is a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands. Consecutive MHI patients of 16 years and older were included. Primary outcome was any (intra)cranial traumatic finding on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were any potential neurosurgical lesion and neurosurgical intervention. The CHIP model was validated and subsequently updated and revised. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating the c-statistic. RESULTS: Among 4557 included patients 3742 received a CT (82%). In 383 patients (8.4%) a traumatic finding was present on CT. A potential neurosurgical lesion was found in 73 patients (1.6%) with 26 (0.6%) patients that actually had neurosurgery or died as a result of traumatic brain injury. The original CHIP underestimated the risk of traumatic (intra)cranial findings in low-predicted-risk groups, while in high-predicted-risk groups the risk was overestimated. The c-statistic of the original CHIP model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) and it would have missed two potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient that underwent neurosurgery. The updated model performed similar to the original model regarding traumatic (intra)cranial findings (c-statistic 0.77 95% CI 0.74-0.79, after crossvalidation c-statistic 0.73). The updated CHIP had the same CT rate as the original CHIP (75%) and a similar sensitivity (92 versus 93%) and specificity (both 27%) for any traumatic (intra)cranial finding. However, the updated CHIP would not have missed any (potential) neurosurgical lesions and had a higher sensitivity for (potential) neurosurgical lesions or death as a result of traumatic brain injury (100% versus 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the updated CHIP decision rule is a good alternative to current decision rules for patients with MHI. In contrast to the original CHIP the update identified all patients with (potential) neurosurgical lesions without increasing CT rate.

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).

Correction to: Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.

The collaborator names are inverted.

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care.

External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. RESULTS: For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.

Bilateral versus unilateral interlaminar approach for bilateral decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective study of 175 patients on postoperative pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction.

OBJECT: The bilateral and unilateral interlaminar techniques for bilateral decompression both demonstrate good results for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Although there is some discussion about which approach is more effective, studies that directly compare these two popular techniques are rare. To address this shortcoming, this study compares postoperative functional disability, pain, and patient satisfaction among patients with single-level DLSS who underwent bilateral decompression using either a bilateral or unilateral approach. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent operations between November 1, 2009, and October 1, 2011. These patients underwent single-level bilateral decompressive surgery using either the bilateral or unilateral interlaminar approach at one of 5 participating hospitals. Exclusion criteria included previous lumbar surgery, additional disc surgery, and spondylolisthesis requiring fusion surgery. Primary outcome measures included bodily pain (as reported using the visual analog scale [VAS]), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, reductions in leg and back symptoms and the patient's general evaluation of the procedure were queried. Finally, patient satisfaction and surgical parameters were evaluated. Questionnaires were sent to each patient's home, and electronic patient files were used to collect the data. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five patients returned the questionnaire (74.4% response rate; 68 and 107 patients who underwent the bilateral or unilateral approach, respectively). Mean age at surgery was 68 years (range 34-89 years), and the mean follow-up period was 14.2 months (range 3.3-27.4 years). There were no significant differences in ODI (20.3 vs 22.6 for the bilateral and unilateral approaches, respectively), RMDQ (3.99 vs 4.8, respectively), or pain scores between treatment groups. Back symptoms were reduced in 74.8% (bilateral: 74.6% vs unilateral: 75%; not significant), and leg symptoms in 80.6% of the patients (bilateral: 73.1% vs unilateral: 85.4%; p = 0.048). In total, 72.1% (bilateral) and 80.0% (unilateral) of patients reported good overall treatment results (p = 0.226). Significantly more patients in the unilateral group reported a better overall satisfaction with the procedure (82.1% vs 69.1%; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in postoperative functional disability and pain between the surgical techniques. The significant differences in patient satisfaction and reduction in leg symptoms were unrelated to surgical technique. The overall treatment results were satisfactory. Both techniques are safe and effective options for treating patients with single-level DLSS.